Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. Secretary Fowler, supported by Mr. Secretary Prior, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Tebbit, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Dr. Rhodes Boyson and Mr. Tony Newton, presented a Bill to amend the Opticians Act 1958 in relation to the supply of optical appliances and publicity relating to their supply; to make amendments of the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 in relation to general ophthalmic services and finance in the National Health Service; to make amendments of the National Health Service Act 1977 in relation to Family Practitioner Committees; to amend the law relating to social security, statutory sick pay and contracted-out occupational pension schemes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Bill that has just been read the First time not to be available to hon. Members until 11 o'clock, although it will be available to members of the press at a press conference being organised before 11 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: Not for the first time, I say that hon. Members should always have papers available to them, if not before the press, certainly at the same time. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. John Prescott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I bring to your attention the fact that the same problem occurs with the GLC transport Bill that should be produced today, but which hon. Members will not have until after the press conference? It is unacceptable to the Opposition that such a thing should happen when we are expected to give a response to a Government Bill. To have the Bill before the press may be a matter for argument, but to have it at the same time as the press is the least that any hon. Member should expect.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, and I shall look into the matter.

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Health and Social Security Bill will not be made available to the press before it is made available to hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that that puts the matter into perspective.

Mr. Prescott: What about the transport Bill?

Orders of the Day — Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am conscious of the fact that I am fortunate to have been well up in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I have chosen to promote a Bill that I feel deserves to pass through all its stages successfully, both in this House and in the other place. It is aimed at clearing away some of the doubts in the part of the law that deals with claims by individuals based on personal injuries or death resulting from such injuries.
When I speak of personal injuries, I do not mean only those injuries which spring readily to mind, such as injuries sustained in a road accident. I also include conditions that might not be immediately thought of as personal injuries, such as those that are brought about or brought on as a result of working in an unhealthy environment. We are all graphically aware of the horrendous injuries that can be sustained in an accident either on the road or at work. However, equally horrendous injuries can be sustained simply by someone being in an unhealthy atmosphere for a long time, perhaps being subjected to contaminated air or high levels of noise.
Some of these injuries in the form of what are known as industrial diseases can take a long time to make themselves apparent. I have in mind pneumoconiosis and asbestosis. As hon. Members will probably know, pneumoconiosis is a disease that can take a long time to make itself apparent. It is a disease of the lungs contracted mainly by coal miners breathing air contaminated by dust.

Mr. Barry Henderson: When I first saw the Bill, I could not immediately perceive the hon. Gentleman's interest in what looked like a piece of quibbling lawyers' documentation. I realised, knowing the hon. Gentleman's wide experience of mining and the care of miners, that there was possible significance for pneumoconiosis sufferers. Is he satisfied that the Bill will improve the position of people who suffer from pneumoconiosis and treat Scottish sufferers as favourably as those south of the border?

Mr. Eadie: To take the hon. Gentleman's last point first, any measure implemented by the Bill will mean that Scottish miners or other sufferers will not be disadvantaged in any way compared to those south of the border. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to curb his impatience, because I have only just started to develop my argument. The hon. Gentleman may or may not be impressed by the measures, but I should value his support to ensure that the Bill receives a Second Reading.
I referred to injuries caused by environmental conditions, and pneumoconiosis can be classified in that category. I worked for 30 years in mining, mostly at the coal face; with that experience one is aware of the consequences and effect that that has on men.
Mining is not the only industry in which one can contract pneumoconiosis.
I hope that the House will bear with me when I say that it is not pleasant to see workmates whom one has known as boy and man leaning on anything handy as they pause to get air into their damaged lungs. One has known some of them in earlier years as, to coin a Scottish phrase, "big braw men". I know that it will come as no suprise to hon. Members that I do not apologise and never apologise in the House for my advocacy on behalf of miners. I believe that miners and their wives are the salt of the earth. We would all probably agree that mother nature does not give up her treasures lightly from the bowels of the earth. However, I believe that Parliament has a responsibility to minimise the consequence to those involved in what is described as man's quest for those treasures.
The industrial injuries Acts passed by Parliament in what can now be described as yesteryear meant a great deal to working people. They replaced the inadequate workmen's compensation Acts. The scheduling of diseases under the industrial injuries Acts removed the anxiety felt by many when claiming industrial injury benefit. Pneumoconiosis is a scheduled industrial disease, but a problem exists in too many instances when miners cannot prove that they have the disease.
I should like to praise the mines inspectorate for the work that it has done to ensure that safety standards are implemented within the mining industry. The inspectorate is truly independent of management and over the years has built up trust from the unions and the work force. It is a confidence and trust unequalled in British industry. I mention that because there are rumours that some people in the Health and Safety Executive want to alter the role and authority of the mining inspectorate. If true, that would be a foolish disregard of history and tradition.
I should like to mention the role played by the National Union of Mineworkers and other miners' unions in assisting miners in their claims for industrial injury benefit and negligence. The unions spend enormous sums of money assisting their members. It is a service that deserves more credit than it receives, particularly in pneumoconiosis claims.
Many miners have the problem of proving that they are pneumoconiotic and to what extent. In many cases they feel aggrieved that the diagnosis is bronchitis and the union tries to seek redress for the miner by applying for a medical examination for him before the pneumoconiosis panel. Many cases fail, and the disease is diagnosed as bronchitis. The simple way out would be to make bronchitis a scheduled disease for all workers in heavy industry. The broader concept is that we should pay benefit to workers according to their disablement. Some NUM local branch officials try another rather macabre way out. It is neither their fault nor that of the men that they do so. When a man dies one has to ensure that a post-mortem examination is held. It is based on the simple concept that what the man could not prove in life may be proved in death. To have it proved means a great deal financially under the industrial injuries Acts to the widow or to other dependants.
I have had the harrowing experience of trying to prove after death what a man could not prove in life. As a local NUM official I had to go to a man's house where he was lying in his coffin. I had to tell the widow that her husband had made me promise that I would ensure that a postmortem examination was carried out to find out whether

he had had pneumoconiosis. I have had the experience, which harries me even when I think about it now, of explaining that to a widow and a young daughter in the house broke down with grief saying, "No, no, you cannot have my daddy taken away to be cut up."
In such circumstances I have left with the feeling that I was an intruder. Such experiences have been deeply distressing. I wish that those who criticise the National Union of Mineworkers and trade union officials would appreciate the nature of the tasks that they have to undertake. They seek neither publicity nor praise and they regard it as their duty to provide a service for their members even in death.
Post-mortem examinations do not always succeed. Indeed, they are not even 50 per cent. successful. Disputes about diagnostic procedures in post-mortem examinations are prevalent. Members of the medical profession to whom I have spoken argue that there is often room for dispute unless the lungs are inflated in the post-mortem diagnosis. I hope that I have been able to illustrate that "personal injuries" as a result of working in an unhealthy environment is a cold and inadequate term if that environment leads to a man developing pneumoconiosis.
Asbestosis gives rise to great and increasing concern. It is caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust. Those who work in the asbestos industry or who install or remove asbestos, particularly those who were connected with asbestos before its deadly effects were understood, are especially at risk. I have little personal experience of asbestosis, which, like pneumoconiosis, is a scheduled industrial disease. My knowledge is based on television documentary programmes and press comments. However, one of my constituents who is suffering from asbestosis has visited my surgery.
The effect of asbestosis is no less disabling than the effect of pneumoconiosis. It has emerged that some of the sufferers could have contracted the disease at several companies for which they had worked during long working lives. This is illustrative of the hazards that working people face when they seek to earn a livelihood for themselves and their families.
I have mentioned the best known examples of personal injuries. These are readily apparent physical injuries that are caused by involvement in an accident and less apparent injuries that are caused over a long period by exposure to an unhealthy environment.
There is also an ever-increasing awareness of the dangers of high noise levels and the effects that they can have on the health and well-being of those who are exposed to them. Industrial deafness may not make itself apparent for a considerable time. We may readily think of noisy factories and the noisy cabs of tractors and lorries, but a recent report prepared in America concluded that the members of a symphony orchestra were subjected to noise levels well in excess of those considered desirable. I think that all those with young families are, to put it politely, inconvenienced. That is due to modern technology and technological development.
I do not think that people realise that technology is wonderful. I used to ask why it was necessary to break men's backs if we could produce new machines and new tools that would prevent it. Those who say that hard work never killed anyone have probably never done a hard day's work in their lives. I am all for technology.
We are now much more aware of the inherent dangers that face many working people, and it is accepted that


there are many people suffering from the injuries that I have mentioned. I have selected only a few examples of personal injuries; I could give many more. I have tried to illustrate the general background that has caused me to promote the Bill. There are other diseases that are well known or not so well known and I hope that the Bill will clarify the law and assist those who are concerned in bringing actions for damages based on personal injuries.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has rightly placed great emphasis on the practical problems that are faced by those suffering from industrial diseases which he hopes the Bill will alleviate. Will he confirm that the Bill covers personal injuries outside the industrial environment and that someone who was injured by high noise levels that did not necessarily have anything to do with work could come within its limitations? He presented an appropriate example by referring to the noise levels to which members of symphony orchestras are subjected.

Mr. Eadie: I think that the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. It might be said that I am trying by legislation to issue specific instructions to the courts, and that in so doing I am attempting to remove their discretion. Lawyers and laymen are not always opposed to the courts exercising discretion. It is often said that the chance to exercise discretion provides hope. The arguments for permissive legislation or mandatory legislation have been adduced many times in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Perhaps there is a bit of both in this Bill. I am not trying to be like a lawyer, saying that on the one hand we can have this, and on the other hand we can have that. I am endeavouring to spell out in statute what my Bill does, without removing the elements of discretion but giving instructions to the court. I may be criticised for it, but I have tried to use my best endeavours.
We are aware of the dfficulties encountered when laws are unclear. I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and other hon. Members will welcome my Bill, and give it the support that I believe it deserves. It will help all those who have suffered personal injury.
Before I discuss the details of the Bill, the House may find it interesting to know the events that led up to it. The Scottish Law Commission promotes the reform of the law in Scotland, as Scottish Members will know from their association with the discussions on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 in the Scottish Grand Committee. On 16 November 1982, the commission issued report No. 74, entitled
Prescription and the Limitations of Action. Report on Personal Injuries Actions and Private International Law Questions.
That is a somewhat daunting title, but in essence the report contains the commission's deliberations on this area of law and recommendations for its reform. Attached to the report was a draft Bill prepared by the commission's draftsmen. That draft Bill formed the basis of the Bill that we are discussing today. The report is part of the continuing process of examination and reform, and the main part of the commission's examination of the law on prescription and limitations of action was formulated in its report No. 15 of 1970. The recommendations of that report were implemented in the Prescriptions and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Some hon. Members may be a little uneasy about such technical and legal terms, but I shall try to provide as full an explanation as possible.
Even after the introduction of the 1973 Act, the Scottish Law Commission kept the position under review, and discovered that there was continuing dissatisfaction with the presentation, rather than with the substance, of the law. The commission believed that a further review of the Scottish law was justified in April 1980, and it published a consultative memorandum No. 45 entitled
Time Limits in Actions for Personal Injuries.
In July 1980 the commission published a consultation paper on prescription and limitation in private international law, which was prompted by the negotiation of a draft EC convention on contracts, and by the recommendations of the Law Commission for England and Wales for reform of English law in this matter. Consideration of the responses to that memorandum and paper led the Scottish Law Commission to believe that some reform of Scottish law was necessary, and it produced report No. 74, containing recommendations on how the law might be changed.
My Bill is based on the commission's draft Bill, which in turn is based on the recommendations arrived at after wide consultation with many interested parties. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will be assured that my Bill is not a hastily drawn up measure but a considered response to the problems which the commission recognised required clarification.
Hon. Members may ask how the Bill achieves the desired clarification of the law while balancing the interests of all concerned. It might be helpful if I dealt briefly with the present law and explained how it works in claims for damages for personal injuries. Prescription is a principle of law that extinguishes completely some claims or rights after a fixed period. I shall mention that principle only briefly, since the main thrust of my Bill is not aimed at that part of the law. There are two forms of prescription. The first is the prescription of heritable rights where, after 10 years, an apparently valid title to heritable property becomes unchallengeable. There are also prescriptions which, after the appropriate period of five or 20 years has expired completely, extinguish the rights and obligations to which they apply.
The limitation of action is a completely different animal. I am advised that it is not a native principle of Scottish law but is the result of legislation based on the English concept and aimed at uniformity of law throughout the United Kingdom. The principle of limitation is that the expiry of a stated period bars the raising of an action to enforce a claim. It is a rule of procedure that does not extinguish the claim but simply prevents it from being enforced.
Since 1954 the most important general rule of limitation has been that actions for damages for personal injuries or for death arising from those injuries must be raised within three years. The rule was set out in the Law Reform (Limitations of Actions, &c.) Act 1954.
I hope that I have been able to remind hon. Members of the basic rules in the area of law with which my Bill deals. Hon. Members might well ask why we need all these rules preventing the bringing of personal injuries claims after a certain time. The House will recall that I mentioned the necessity to strike a balance between the interests of the parties involved in personal injuries cases, both those making the claim and those being claimed against. The need for such rules can be summarised as follows.
First, there is the need to protect the defender from being subject to possible claims over a long period. In all fairness, there must come a time when the books are closed. The defender's records may have been lost or destroyed. It would be unfair and inefficient to require an employer to keep records for long periods simply to guard against the possibility of an employee claiming damages for personal injuries.
Secondly, there is the need to ensure that claims are dealt with as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. Most claims will depend on eye witness evidence. I have had long experience as an official and have been involved in many cases when eye witness evidence counted for a great deal in determining the outcome. Embarrassment can be caused and the accuracy of eye witness evidence can be challenged with the passage of time. Anyone who has had experience in industrial relations, in industry or, indeed, at the Bar will know the importance of eye-witness evidence. The longer the delay, the less reliable the evidence on both sides tends to be. I could make a speech on that point alone.
It is fair to say that the limitations rules provide a practical sanction against excessive delay. I mentioned earlier the problem of claimants whose injuries might not become apparent until some time later—perhaps well beyond the three-year period. I am glad to say that the present law takes account of such a problem and I would not wish to change all those basic principles. However, as I said previously, the Scottish Law Commission found discontent with the presentation of these laws giving rise to uncertainty and doubt about the position of certain claimants.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we should take the opportunity to remedy these areas of doubt and uncertainty. I am glad to have such an opportunity by means of the ballot for private Members' Bills. I think that it will be helpful to hon. Members if I go through the Bill and explain, against the background to which I have already referred, what it sets out to do.
I hope that I have convinced hon. Members of the need for a limitation period based on rules which take into account the specific interests of the claimants and the person claimed against. The Scottish Law Commission found during its extensive consultations that there was general content with the three-year period of limitation for personal injuries cases and therefore my Bill makes no attempt to change the time limit. There is a requirement to clarify the law rather than to make sweeping changes.
My Bill proceeds by way of amending the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Sections 17 to 19 of the 1973 Act deal with the limitation of actions and I propose in my Bill to substitute new clauses 17 and 18, which are incorporated in clause 2 of the Bill, for those provisions. Clause 17 of the Bill restates the basic principle but more clearly. It provides that no actions in respect of personal injuries may be brought after three years from the injury being sustained or the date of the claimant becoming aware that he is suffering from an injury. The date of the claimant becoming aware that he is suffering from an injury is a substantial definition and instruction to the courts.
The Scottish Law Commission considered that the expression "act, neglect or default" in the existing legislation was too indicative of a suggestion of fault or

blame. My Bill therefore refers simply to an "act or omission" giving rise to an injury. I am advised and assured that this covers all possibilities and is a more acceptable term. The Bill retains the requirement that if the act or omission giving rise to the injury is a continuing one the relevant date for calculating the three-year period should be
the date on which the act or omission ceased".
In such circumstances it might be difficult, if not impossible, to state exactly when the injury occurred. This method of dealing with the problem has the advantage—I wish to emphasise this to the House—that the date will normally be the date of the claimant ceasing to work in the harmful conditions and thus will be easier to ascertain than the actual date of injury.
I have already mentioned the problems associated with injuries that do not come to light for a considerable time or their extent not being fully realised. It is clear that anyone in this position should not have his claim rejected simply because he was unaware that he was suffering from an injury until the time limit had expired. Earlier I mentioned asbestosis and pneumoconiosis. People with those diseases could be unaware that they were suffering injury until the time limit had expired.
My Bill retains the principle that in such cases the limitation period should not begin to run until the claimant becomes aware of the position. That is of great importance. This provision is contained in section 22 of the 1973 Act, but the Scottish Law Commission found that it was subject to criticism for being somewhat inflexible and that the reference to the claimant seeking appropriate advice was considered to be unnecessary and served only to complicate matters. The Bill provides that the knowledge of the claimant in such cases should be a relevant factor in assessing the limitation period. The commission addressed its mind to whether the test of knowledge should be related to the claimant himself. It concluded that it should, and the Bill follows that recommendation.
Hon. Members will appreciate that it is impossible for legislation to take account of each and every circumstance. The formula adopted will enable the courts, which are best placed to do so, to take account of the differing circumstances of claimants and the differing nature of their injuries.
The test of knowledge is not open-ended in favour of the claimant, as the limitation period will run from the date on which he became aware of his injury, or the date on which it would be reasonable to assume that he should have become aware of his injury. In such cases, the limitation period will commence when the claimant is aware, or should have been aware, first, that a sufficiently serious injury had occurred and, secondly, that the injury was caused by an act or omission by the person against whom he is claiming. The reference to a "sufficiently serious" injury is designed to give a clear indication to the courts that the injury should be at a fairly advanced stage before the time limit begins to run.
The new section 18 deals with claims stemming from injuries that result in death. Following its consultations and deliberations, the Scottish Law Commission concluded that the executors and relatives of a deceased person should not be entitled to raise an action based on those injuries where no action by or on behalf of the deceased had been commenced within three years. The Bill reflects that recommendation.
In all other respects, the Bill applies to the executors and relatives of deceased persons rules similar to those already applying to personal injury claims generally. The Scottish Law Commission was concerned about the question of time limits against persons under a legal disability who would find it difficult to bring an action within three years. I am referring to children under age, persons suffering from mental illness and so on. In general terms, I am assured that the present law is satisfactory because it does not allow time limits to run against such persons while they are disabled.
However, there are one or two inconsistencies that I am glad to remedy by the Bill. For example, a child in the custody of a parent is not at present considered to be under legal disability, and the present rule may disciminate against him if the parent has an interest in ensuring that action is not taken; the parent may have been at fault in a motor accident which led to the child's injuries. The Scottish Law Commission concluded that there was much to be said for a simple rule to prevent time running for those with legal disabilities. That view was endorsed in the consultation process. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Bill remedies those anomalies and provides a clearer statement of the law.
Although on the one hand the Bill extends the rules on legal disability to protect those for whom such protection is desirable, on the other hand—that is a legal phrase—it narrows the rules so that they apply only to the injured person himself. The original rules allow legal disability to be applied not only to the injured person but to anyone who took over the right of action. Thus, a defendant might find that the limitation period was suspended to his prejudice by, for example, the assignment of the claim by the injured person to someone under a legal disability. I hope that the House will agree that by clarifying the rules on legal disability the Bill presents a more acceptable and clearer statement of the law to the benefit of both a legally disabled claimant and the person against whom a claim is made.
Although personal injury claims form the main part of the Bill, the Scottish Law Commission considered cases in which a certain position, such as a contract, was governed by a foreign law. It is accepted that there may be confusion about whether a Scottish court, in deciding such cases, should apply the Scottish or foreign rules of limitation. The commission concluded that doubts in that area would be best removed by a straightforward rule. The Bill follows that recommendation by providing that in cases where the foreign rule governs a position the rules of limitation of that law should be applied to the exclusion of any corresponding Scottish law rules.
I am afraid that the Bill cannot be said to be the liveliest piece of legislation that has come before the House. But, lively or unlively, it deals with people and attempts to improve their lot. Whether I do that in a lively or unlively way does not matter, because at the end of the day what matters is how beneficial it will be for those concerned.
I trust that I have said enough to convince the House that, although couched in rather technical, legal terms, the Bill deals with the real issues. In clarifying the law and seeking to remove doubts in an important area of the law it will be of real benefit. The Scottish Law Commission report made it clear that, while the law is generally satisfactory, there are areas where it can be improved for the benefit of all. That is what I am trying to do with this

Bill. I am convinced that we should take the opportunity to effect those improvements, and I hope that the House will give the Bill the support that I believe it deserves.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on selecting this particularly equitable piece of legislation to promote as a private Member's Bill and on the clarity with which he presented the meaning and implications of his Bill, despite the fact that he labours under the enormous advantage of not being a lawyer. He said that hard work never killed anybody, and that that phrase was normally uttered by those who had never done any hard work. He is a living example of the concept that hard work never killed anybody. He spent at least 30 years working extremely hard down and around the mines, and we are happy that the hard work did not kill him, whomever else it may have tragically killed.

Mr. Henderson: He has put in some hard work on the Bill.

Mr. Fairbairn: As my hon. Friend reminds me, the hon. Gentleman put in hard work on the Bill. I am nor in a position to judge the hon. Gentleman's skill as a coal miner but I think that he would make a good lawyer. If he retires from this place, he could put his hand and mind to the interests of litigants. The whole House will especially sympathise with and applaud the hon. Gentleman's tribute to those who work with such skill and dedication in the mining industry. My father said to me that, when he was fighting in Palestine in the first world war, if anything difficult, dangerous or courageous had to be done, it would always be a miner who did it.
I had the privilege early in my legal career, having devilled for the late sheriff McIlwraith, to appear in a large number of reparation actions on behalf of coal miners who had tragically been injured while doing their dangerous work. It was a privilege to meet them and go down the mines to see the critical conditions in which they had to produce the source of light and heat for all of us. I agree with the hon. Member for Midlothian that miners are the salt of the earth. I am thankful that the machinery and technology of which the hon. Gentleman spoke have greatly reduced the risk of injuries of the type that used to occur, although, paradoxically, they have reduced the number of people who are employed in the industry.
In a previous incarnation, when I was studying medicine, I had the experience of dissecting corpses of men who had been employed in the mining industry and those who had not. I remember my shock when I first compared the lungs and chest vessels of those who had worked down the mines with those who had not. In the past 20 or 30 years, the recognition by the law that a disease or a change in the conditions for reparation may not arise from a single traumatic act has been a major improvement in our approach to the equitable concept of reparation for injury.
Lawyers are, by definition, an unpopular breed.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmanan): Hear, hear.

Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." I may select him to charge for that advice. He has often said that lawyers overcharge. That may be true of solicitors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen,


South (Mr. Malone) will appreciate, but I assure him that it is not true of advocates. The definition of an advocate's clerk is someone who helps the advocate to get what is coming to the clerk. It would be helpful on this occasion for a lawyer who has had some experience of reparation matters to make some comments on the Bill.
Like the hon. Member for Midlothian, I pay tribute to the Scottish Law Commission, its distinguished chairman, Lord Maxwell, and all those who worked on the paper that gave rise to the sensitive alterations in the law that are foreshadowed in the Bill. It is particularly appropriate that the legal reforms suggested by the Scottish Law Commission should not be unduly delayed. It may surprise the House to hear that, as a lawyer, I take the view that the less law there is and the simpler it is, the better. Because of the pressure of legislation, it is particularly appropriate and commendable that the hon. Member for Midlothian has selected as the subject of his Bill a piece of law reform which has already been recommended. He might have selected other matters that were not recommended, but which might have been of particular appeal. I hope that such intelligent reforms become a habit and become law as quickly as possible. They should be thought of as an appropriate choice for those who are successful in the ballot.
As the hon. Member for Midlothian said, prescription has a positive and negative effect. We do not need to go into that jurisprudential distinction in the Bill, because the concept of a positive prescription does not arise. We are concerned solely with the loss of a right to sue for reparation. The title of the Bill contains the words, "Prescription and Limitation". Lest I bore the House, I shall not attempt to describe the difference between prescription and limitation because to do so accurately would confirm that lawyers are unnecessarily tedious, long-winded and boring.

Mr. Donald Stewart: No!

Mr. Fairbairn: If the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) continues to tempt me, I shall give him a lecture on the matter afterwards—provided that he buys me drinks while I do so. I warn him that it will cost him a very large number of drinks.
Successive Acts, beginning principally with the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions &c.) Act 1954 to which the hon. Member for Midlothian referred, have adjusted the period within which an action for damages for personal injury may be brought. It is important to explain to the House in some detail why there should be such a limit. The hon. Gentleman described with frankness, fairness and clarity the unfairness which may arise if there is delay.
Research was done on this issue some time ago. I do not greatly favour subjecting everything to research, but this is a simple process which can be conducted as a game. One enacts a simple scene in front of 10 people and then asks each of them various questions such as, "Who walked into the room first? Did either person sit down? Was either wearing glasses? What did the one say to the other? Did the other reply? Who spoke first?" and so on. If the same questions are asked of the same people after an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year or two years, not only will the 10 people give 10 different accounts, but there will be as many different accounts from each person, depending on the passage of time.
It is no fault of the witness that he emotionalises and personalises the events that he has witnessed so that they become distorted into a fantasy of his own. I am sure that all hon. Members will share my experience. People frequently tell me that they met me in, say, a certain hotel in Stanraer on a certain occasion and that I said such and such to them, when I know that I have never been to Stranraer, have never been inside such a hotel and have never met the person concerned before. People fancify and falsify, albeit unintentionally. That is why the prime excellence in a reparation action is that it should be heard as soon as possible after the event complained of. It should also be heard quickly because in many cases recovery of the injured person is psychologically united with settlement of the claim—"no settlement, no recover" is a constant characteristic of reparation actions.
Therefore, it should not be thought that the Bill is a prescription for delay, because it is nothing of the kind. It is an attempt to achieve equity. There must be a limit on the time within which actions may be brought. It would be thoroughly unfair if people had constantly in mind throughout their lives the fear that someone might sue them for something that happened many years earlier. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is also unfair that the party being blamed should be put at a disadvantage by the destruction of evidence and the forgetting, aging or even death of witnesses that the passage of time creates.
The hon. Gentleman instanced a variety of new claims such as industrial deafness and asbestosis. More recently, there has been the concept of radiation damage arising from experiences in the 1950s, so it is important that allowance should be made for conditions which develop silently and gradually in a progressive and debilitating way.
I give this warning, however. The hon. Gentleman said that a person might become deaf through listening to an orchestra, going to a disco or even entering his own home if he is unfortunate enough to have children who believe that volume is a commodity to be had in multiple quantity. Here we must be cautious, because if going to a concert were to be an attributable act of damnum for which damages could be claimed, the Arts Council and the legal aid fund would have to unite.
A school of thought among lawyers and certainly among claimants favours the concept of absolute liability. That was partly suggested in the Pearson report, certainly with regard to road traffic injuries. The Americans have taken that path to some extent, but I warn the House that absolute liability, in removing fault as the basis for injury claims, also removes any duty of care from the employer. If liability for injury is absolute, it matters not whether the employer puts guards on the machines, ensures that employees wear goggles, keeps the floor free of grease, or whatever. A local authority would be no more liable if it left manhole covers off than if it put them on, except perhaps for some penalty or fine under the statute. The House should not overlook the importance of fault in promoting care in industrial workplaces. Any idea that there should be automatic liability therefore is a bad one.
Such a concept would also give rise to the absurdity that it would not only be the person with pneumoconiosis who had a claim. What about the chap who has had a bad chest since birth? What about the chap who is too short to see football matches whose head is constantly hit by taller chaps? Everyone would have a claim arising from any characteristic, difference or disability.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a person with a bad chest since birth in relation to pneumoconiosis. I know that he has had experience in court of the difficulty of proving that a person is pneumoconiotic. I can only cite my own industrial experience, but I have found that people working in heavy industry always seem to be troubled, for example, by bronchitis. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that people who work in heavy industry seem to be more susceptible to bronchitis?

Mr. Fairbairn: It was because the hon. Gentleman mentioned the concept of bronchitis that I introduced a caution about absolute liability. Accidents of fate or chance should never be the basis for a claim. I agree with him. A much more liberal attitude is now taken in the courts than when pneumoconiosis and asbestosis were first conceived of. The proof of such diseases is difficult, but the courts now take a much more sensitive approach to them and proof is not anything like as difficult as it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Mr. Donald Stewart: With regard to liability, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware from his professional experience, as are many of us in industry, that there is an in-between state when safety devices such as goggles are provided but workers do not wear them. In such cases the issue of liability would provide a good deal of argument in the law courts.

Mr. Fairbairn: There is a simple rule of law that if the person is the author of his own injuries he must take the consequences. In broad concept, that is a principle of law. A person who is told to wear goggles and does not do so because they are uncomfortable, or a person who is told that the circular saw must have its guard fitted at all times and then removes it because he can produce twice as many button sticks with it off, is held to be the author of his own misfortune. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, in that I have often thought that if a chap who is working in a toffee factory falls into a vat of boiling toffee because the appropriate rail is not up, whatever else might be said about what he did or did not do, or should or should not have done, one thing is certain—he did not intend to have a bath in boiling toffee.

Mr. Eadie: This is an important point. The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned people being the authors of their own misfortunes. He has practised law for some time and I am sure that he would not want to be misinterpreted. He is using the concept of being the author of one's own misfortune in relation to whether it is possible to claim for negligence. Surely he agrees that such a person would still be entitled to industrial injury benefit? There is an important distinction between the workmen's compensation Acts and the industrial injuries Acts.

Mr. Fairbairn: Such a person certainly would be entitled to such benefit but he would not have a claim for negligence against his employer or any other member of the community. He must establish that the fault which caused the injury was not his own if he is to recover damages from another party. That distinction should be clear.
The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 was the first breach in the absolute provision of the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions &c.) Act 1954 that an

action must be brought within three years. It was recognised then that there was a possibility of an injury developing when there was no sign at the time of its cause. I can think of many examples. For example, someone might drop a hammer on a person's head. After a few days of concussion in hospital that person might appear to be perfectly all right. However, there might be residual injuries which give rise to debilitation, tumour or injuries to the cranium which cause chronic pain years later, but yet can correctly be assigned to the original injury.
It was most equitable that the 1973 Act was introduced. The Bill attempts to refine it on the basis of a decade's experience of the problem of time limits for actions of reparation. The Scottish Law Commission said:
It was held in a series of cases on both sides of the Border that injury could be sustained by the pursuer irrespective of whether the illness had manifested itself: the fact that the pursuer did not discover, and had no reasonable opportunity to discover that the injury had been sustained until several years had elapsed, made no difference.
It is probable that, in contemporary times, there will be ever-increasing cases and causes of injury which come about years after the original cause. The first benefit of the hon. Gentleman's Bill is that it faces the question of when the period which is to have an absolute terminus should begin. It is equitable that the appropriate date should be the date of injury, if it is known, or the date of knowledge of the injury, whichever is the later. It might seem to some people that these matters are simple, but I should like to quote a case to demonstrate the difficulties which a pursuer and the courts might face when deciding when an injury began or was caused and who was to blame. This is not one of my cases, but that of another hon. Member. It is appalling, but it illustrates the difficulties.
A man had a pain in his chest. He went to his doctor, who told him that he did not have a pain in his chest. It was deemed to be psychosomatic. That is another difficulty which the law faces. The hon. Member for Midlothian will know the condition which is known in the law as miner's back. It is frequently taken to mean a complaint which anyone can make and no one can prove. We should always remember that the malingerer presents another difficulty in the path of genuine claims. As I said, the man was told that he had no pain in his chest. After he had been to the doctor several times saying that the pain was worse, he was referred to a hospital to get him out of the way. At the hospital he was told that he had pleurisy, that there was nothing really wrong with him and that he should just go home and take some pills. The man did so, but the pain got worse and worse, so he called in a locum doctor.
According to the evidence, the locum was not sober. He said that the man did not have pleurisy, but had bronchitis, and that he should take some other pills, stay in bed and enjoy himself. During the night he became critical, so his father called an ambulance. On the way to hospital they encountered an off-duty policeman pushing his motor car in an attempt to start it across six lanes of traffic in the dark. The ambulance, rushing to get the man to hospital, hit the motor car and the unfortunate pursuer was thrown out into the road, where he lay for 30 minutes in the rain. Eventually he arrived at the hospital and developed symptoms which I understand resulted from the injury that he received when flung from the ambulance. He was taken into intensive care.
The diagnosticians did not appreciate that he had a head injury, because they were concentrating on his chest


injury, and the man stopped breathing several times. That resulted in brain damage and he became a vegetable. All the parties involved—the doctors, the hospital, the local authority, the policeman and the ambulance driver—denied fault. Ten years later the man's relatives are still trying for a remedy. That is a tragic and appalling case and illustrates the difficulties of deciding when and how an injury arises.
There is no attempt in the 1973 Act to define a date for when an injury arises.At present, the period starts when the act, neglect or fault ceases. That is not a satisfactory rule. For example, a person who contracts pneumoconiosis may continue to work in the mines long after he has contracted the disease, and the time will be confused. He may continue to work in the mines, but not where the air affects his pneumoconiosis. In such case, the date is also uncertain and difficult to determine.
The concept of the date of knowledge in the Bill is an important improvement. Under the 1973 Act the start was when a "reasonable man" would be aware. That is to be modified to the date on which
in the opinion of the court, it would have been reasonably practicable … to become, aware.
Since 1973 the courts have been lenient towards the concept of reasonable awareness. It is reasonable for the court to say, "For goodness sake, the man might just have thought that he had a cough or a cold and it was not reasonable for him to be aware." After all, we all hope that we are not ill.
I have described the improvements for those who are fortunate enough not to die of their injuries. The Bill also contains reforms in relation to fatal accidents. It is unreasonable if a person has not raised an action in his lifetime until it is barred, for the survivor or executor to be given time to start all over again. Under the Bill, and executor or relative has either three years from death or three years from the date of his knowledge of the cause of injury and the right, therefore, to claim. It would not be equitable to give the survivor a better claim than the deceased, or to give those who survive an injury more time than those who succumb to an injury. The Bill contains important and intelligent reforms. The three-year period is right. The Law Commision was given evidence on both sides. It was advised by some that five years was right, by others that three years was right and by others that the period should be even shorter.
I do not wish to cast aspersions on the solicitors' branch of the profession, but a solicitor, like a general practitioner, has to deal with many clients. He does not deal with just one case at a time, as an advocate does. A solicitor has innumerable calls on his time and attention. I regret that actions for damages frequently take time to be raised. Often complicated matters are involved and questions of liability require a great deal of investigation. It is important that generous time should be allowed for the raising of actions, but that that time should not make it likely that witnesses will have forgotten or that evidence will have been lost. The urgent duty of any lawyer is to raise an action at the earliest possible moment. That is in the interests of all parties. If the period were extended from three years to five years, that would merely give people the opportunity to put off until tomorrow what they cannot be bothered to do today. That would be a retrograde alteration and I am glad that the Bill sticks to three years.
It is wise for the Bill to make absolute the concept of legal disability. For a person who is under age or insane, for example, the time will not run during a period of disability. It is important to understand that in many cases involving children under the legal age action will arise because of the fault of a parent or relative who has an interest. For example, the driver of a motor car who drives into a lamp post and injures his eight-year-old son would have an interest in not raising the action because it would be against himself. The change in the Bill is important.
The concept of actions of relief in the Bill is also important. Lay members of the House may not know what that phrase means. It involves the right of a defender—for instance in the tragic case that I cited—who is sued alone to recover damages from other parties who were to blame. The period for that is two years, which I think is a proper period for such recovery.
The Bill also contains a provision of clarity which I welcome. Where an action arises from an injury or wrong that occurs in a country other than Scotland, the limitation on the time for the action will be according to the law of that country, even when the action is heard in Scotland.
I apologise if I have delayed the House for some time, but the Bill is one of great equity, with considerable legal and social implications. It is to the immense credit of the hon. Member for Midlothian, who has personal experience and has witnessed the tragedy of industrial injuries, to the families of those injured and to the community in which they work, that he should be associated with introducing such an equitable measure.
I hope, as sometimes happens, that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will be known colloquially as "Eadie's law".

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The Opposition welcome the Bill. We, too, hope that it becomes known as "Eadie's law".
It is traditional to congratulate those hon. Members who obtain a high position in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I am never sure why that is a reason for congratulation because the opportunity to introduce such a Bill is one that hon. Members often have cause to regret. The Bill most probably will become a valuable piece of legislation, and we hope that it will simplify and clarify the law.
The problem has engaged the law on various occasions in, 1954, 1973 and now, 1983. A wide-ranging inquiry has been held by the Scottish Law Commission on the subject and I am gratified that it got its act together fairly quickly. A contributing factor in calling the legislation "Eadie's law", as we hope it will be known, is that other Eadies may have been involved in the process.
We are conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), with his wide-ranging experience of the mining industry, has described in graphic terms the implications flowing from injuries acquired over a period in circumstances in which it is difficult to establish exactly when the injuries first occurred, and to give an opportunity to the injured and to their families to seek reparation as common justice demands.
New injuries become apparent as technology changes. The medical profession's awareness of the implications of industrial practices also becomes greater. For example, the increasing awareness of industrial deafness will bring in


its wake a series of actions which, under the present law, are not met with justice for those who make the complaints.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has had to deal with a difficult problem involving industrial deafness of an individual working in the shipyards. Although the case had been agreed, and the cause of deafness accepted, the man died before the issue could be fully resolved. The claim was extinguished on his death. It is hoped that, if that case is not covered by legislation, future cases will be. Nothing is more worrying and frustrating to families — in this instance the sum involved was about £450, which is roughly the cost of the average funeral — who have undergone considerable personal problems in dealing with the injury to their deceased relative than learning that his death prevented them from getting money at the very time that they needed it.
The Opposition believe that the Bill is not contentious and wish to ensure its speedy passage. We can investigate its details in Committee. The Bill is particularly well documented. The reports by the Scottish Law Commission are available and we can consider its proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said that the Bill followed the lines of the commission's report No. 74.
We congratulate my hon. Friend, with qualification, on proposing the Bill. We think that it will make an additional contribution to workers in the industry which he has so effectively and consistently defended and advanced. He has also contributed to those who work in many other industries in which there is the danger of prolonged injury and debilitating illness when workers are subjected to hazardous conditions. We hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage so that the gap in the Scottish law can be filled and justice will become available to this hitherto disadvantaged group of individuals.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I think that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has just made his best, albeit short, speech.
I confess that when I first heard about the Bill I thought that it concerned chemists as it refers to prescriptions and limitations. Most of us are aware of the present controversy in which Scottish chemists are arguing with the Government about prescription charges and whether they should be limited or discounted. I hope that my hon. Friends appreciate that I was not unreasonable, as a legally ignorant person, in gaining that first impression of the Bill.
On further inquiry, the Bill appeared to me as a layman to be highly technical and legalistic. I was not surprised to see among the Bill's supporters the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Moray (Mr. Pollock) and for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). However, I was puzzled to see that the promoter of the Bill was the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). That fact, among others, caused me to inquire further into what lay behind such a complex piece of legal jargon. I was surprised to find an honest Fife ex-miner mixing in such dubious legal company.
The reason for the hon. Gentleman's interest then emerged very clearly, and he explained it to us. It was helpful to have his fluent explanation of the practical and

useful provisions in the Bill, despite the fact that to a layman at first sight it looked very complex, technical, legal stuff.
I do not suppose that any hon. Member is unaware of the interest of the hon. Member for Midlothian in the mining industry. He is an acknowledged expert in all aspects of it. Although we clash from time to time about the activities of the National Coal Board and about some aspects of the mining industry, I cannot remember ever questioning the hon. Gentleman's expertise on the subject or his genuine concern for those who work in that industry. I share that concern with him, and it was very well expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). It is an industry in which there is every reason for genuine concern about the welfare of those who work in it.
The way in which the hon. Member for Midlothian presented his Bill revealed what might be described as the acceptable face of trade unionism, from which he comes. All too often we hear, as we have in the past few days, a great deal of what I regard as the extremely unacceptable face of trade unionism. To many people, little is known of this side of trade unionism, which is concerned in a quiet and serious way with looking after the interests of workers. It is quite clear that this was an important part of the hon. Gentleman's work when he was an active trade union official.

Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend is discussing the duties of trade unions. I have always thought that the duties of trade unions were exactly the same as the duties of parents —to protect their children from injury and to promote their prosperity.

Mr. Henderson: Who am I to disagree with such a learned definition?
I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian on bringing such a useful measure before the House. It has been suggested that it should be known as "Eadie's law". I should have thought that "Eadie's edict" was more euphonious. Such a title would make at least as much sense to me as its present one, Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill.
The hon. Member for Midlothian acknowledged the important work of the Scottish Law Commission, which was his source of information and led to the production of the Bill. Speaking as one who can be pretty cynical about lawyers—in the House sometimes we say some rather hard things about what the Scottish Law Commission is, or more often is not, doing—I asked the Library to give me the names of the men and women who gave their time to the important work of the Scottish Law Commission. They hide their light very deep under a bushel. However, report No. 74 of the commission, which deals with the subject, mercifully lists them. Lord Maxwell, Mr. Bertram, Dr. Clive, Mr. Murray and Sheriff Nicholson probably are not names which immediately come to the mind of everyone sitting in the miners' welfare centre in Lochgelly. However, they have performed a valuable role in bringing to the attention of the House the needs of this aspect of the law. Just for once, I think that we should be graciously grateful to them.
I understand from my further researches, after having been disabused of some of my wrongful ideas at the beginning, that prescription and limitation controls the


periods within which a pursuer for damages in a personal injuries claim can legally bring an action against defenders.
In some advice that I was given I was told:
The Bill is particularly important in cases where injuries reveal themselves over a long period of time, such as pneumoconiosis, asbestosis, radiation diseases, brain tumours or industrial deafness. In addition this has implications for employers and insurance companies, the former who might have to maintain policies over a longer period of time, the latter because they might be liable long after the initial period in which an injury started to occur.
When I came to learn or research what was meant by "prescription and limitation", I could follow very readily the idea that to anyone sitting in some property the old adage applied about possession being nine tenths of the law. However, as far as I could make out, if prescription was tight — if the period during which anyone could challenge that person's right to that property was short — possession was rather more than nine tenths of the law, and that, if the period was lengthened, possession might be rather less than nine tenths of the law.
Although it sounds good from the point of view of anyone sitting on property to shorten the period of prescription, it would be disadvantageous to anyone in the category of those with whom we are concerned in this debate—those who have suffered an injury. Prescription would make it more difficult for such a person to pursue a case after a time. It is difficult to strike a balance.

Mr. Fairbairn: If my hon. Friend is interested—I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland would be happy to do this for him — if he cares to go to the Library, in the left hand corner of the first room he will find the section on Scottish law. There he will discover that under the law of Scotland there are innumerable prescriptions — triennial, quin-quennial, sexennial, bicentennial, and so on. They cover all sorts of matter, including his debts. He would be very wise if he went and read about them

Mr. Henderson: I am learning a great deal this morning.
As I understand it, the main objective of the Bill is to help sufferers who only lately get the causes of their injuries diagnosed. My first question is whether the whole Bill is about personal injury only, or whether it covers other types of litigation. Clause 2, which contains the two replacement sections, 17 and 18, is quite explicit. New section 17 applies to
damages in respect of personal injuries.
New section 18 applies
following the death of any person from personal injuries.
The provisions deal with personal injuries and their prescription and limitation. However, unless there is some subtlety about section 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940, clause 1 does not refer specifically to personal injuries. Perhaps some hon. and learned Member will be able to relieve my anxiety.
I say by way of a digression that it is interesting how, in 1940, the House had time to concern itself with the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act. In that year of all years I cannot help feeling that when Adolf Hitler heard about it he must have begun to wonder whether he could possibly win the war if the House had time to put through such an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Fairbairn: I apologise to the author of the Bill, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), but perhaps I may be allowed to explain my understanding of the effect of clause 1.
Clause 2 contains new sections 17 and 18 to replace sections 17 to 19 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Those appear in part II of the Act, which deals solely with actions for personal injury. Clause 1 is a limitation of the right of any defender in any action to recover damages, or his share of the damages of other defenders who were, in the words of the Bill, "wrongdoers". The new sections are not parallel with clause 1, but there is a limitation of defenders to take action against other defenders which in no way encroaches on the excellence of the sections.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his explanation.
In the advice that I have been given about actions of relief that affect clause 1, I was told:
the court might find that a single defender was only 20 per cent. to blame for an accident, but a third party was 80 per cent. to blame. The pursuer cannot claim damages of a third party, unless he raises a separate action, in which case he might be time-barred.
However, a single defender, who pays 100 per cent. of the damages, can recover the appropriate amounts apportioned to the other defenders who have not been cited in an action.
This Bill merely reclassifies the two year limitation as a two year prescription, so that a defender has two years to recover a portion of any damages he has to pay, after which time his right ceases entirely.
As a layman reading such advice, I am a little anxious about the concept that one can bring an action against a party who admits liability, or is proven to be liable, and damages are awarded against that person who can then go along to a third party and claim for perhaps all, but certainly a proportion, of the damages that he has to pay as a result of that action. If that third party had been in court to defend his position, the damages might have been different, or responsibility for the distribution of damages might have been different. It is possible that someone can be done for money as a result of a court action when it may not be fair. One of my hon. and learned Friends may be able to stem my anxiety on that. This is a digression from the Bill, but one that arose out of its consideration.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not know whether I make a very good stem, but I shall have a shot at stemming my hon. Friend's anxiety. The reason for clause 1 is that it would be inequitable if a pursuer were able to raise an action in damages against, say, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who is assoiled, and he then raises it against the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who is assoiled so he has shot at someone else. It would be most inequitable if he sued all the people against whom he believed that he had a remedy.
As to damages for defenders, let us take the simple case of a motor accident in which the driver was distracted by some other person doing something careless. The driver was careless because he should not have been distracted. But the other person was careless because he distracted him, perhaps by waving a banner. In those circumstances, if the injured party sues only the driver, the amount of the injury assessed in damages will be assessed for the injured person and will be awarded against the only defender. If that defender only wishes to get an action of relief against the other defender, he can raise such an action to get relief on the whole of the damages awarded against him.

Mr. Henderson: The way in which hon. Members get free advice on all sorts of subjects is marvellous.

Mr. Fairbairn: It is not free.

Mr. Henderson: It is free to me. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that explanation.
I shall revert to the difference, which I was trying to explain to myself, between prescription and limitation. The limitation, I was told, has a similar effect to prescription, although it refers to procedures rather than to substantive rights. For example, after the lapse of time, a claim is no longer maintainable, although the right still exists. That is because it is more difficult for the evidence to be reliable after a long gap. The conclusion of the advice given to me was:
The moral claim of the pursuer, however, is continued to be recognised.
I should have thought that a moral claim is not much good if one cannot get something for it. As I understand it, the Bill helps to deal with this problem.
A prescription period of 20 years, which has often applied in the past, may seem a long time. However, one would not be pleased about it if one went to one's doctor 20 years after entering the House of Commons having been a miner until arriving here, only to be told, "You've got pneumoconiosis. I am sorry about that, but the chopper came down last year." Presumably, one could have a moral claim for suffering from an injury, but not be getting anything for it. As I understand it, the Bill relieves that problem.
My next point relates to something about which I asked earlier. Are we only restricting ourselves to personal injuries? Again, I was told that in any personal injury case the principle of damnum, injuria, datum is invariably applied before the action can proceed. I can follow that people have to be aware that they are seriously injured and that that would be injuria, and that they have to establish a cause or link, and I imagine that that might be datum. However, they have also to define who is responsible, and presumably that is the damnum. Is it damnum by virtue of being responsible in the sense of proven to be responsible, or has the person only to show that he might have been responsible?
We have recently heard about Cairnryan, where several companies have been involved, at various stages, in the braking up of the Ark Royal. The Health and Safety Executive seems to have removed the danger, but if in subsequent years one of the people working on that job is found to have asbestosis, how could he possibly say which of his employers at which period during the breaking up of that ship was responsible for his getting asbestosis? Hon. Members will remember the debate in which this subject was discussed. I have a letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who is taking an active interest in this matter because it is in his constituency, has had from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. It shows clearly that the Health and Safety Executive has been active and energetic in looking after the welfare and interests of the people on that site.
There is no doubt that at one point a complaint was received by the Health and Safety Executive that men stripping asbestos were not wearing the necessary protective equipment. A visit was paid the following day, and as the complaint was found to be justified an immediate prohibition was issued forbidding the further

stripping of asbestos on the ship and jetty. The report went to the procurator fiscal. Immediate action was taken. When the matter was brought to the attention of the House, the present employers on the site drew attention to the fact that hon. Members were worrying about something that had taken place in the past. They pointed out that as employers they were being thoroughly responsible. They were working closely with the Health and Safety Executive and on site there was a complete specialist asbestos decontamination unit, full respiratory apparatus and special clothing. They had a contract with a company authorised for the disposal of asbestos, which takes asbestos away as soon as the asbestos stripping team have removed it from the ship, and it is sealed in special bags.
If a court case arose 20 years later, that firm, which has probably taken more asbestos out of the Ark Royal than the previous firm, and been there longer, could have a claim made against it as it was the one principally working with asbestos on that site at about that time. It might well be, however, that the previous firm, which had only been working there for a short time, had to be pulled up by the HSE because of the way it was handling asbestos. It would not be at all easy for anyone 20 years later to sort out who was responsible.

Mr. Fairbairn: This is an important point. I do not want to be specific about this case, but in a similar case I should imagine that the pursuer would be advised to sue the defender who had demonstrated fault. It would plainly be impossible to say that that particle of asbestos entered that lung on this date and not on that date. If the pursuer could demonstrate that while he was working there he did not have protective breathing apparatus, or whatever one wears, which is demonstrated in an exhibition in the Upper Hall—I would commend it to those who have not seen it—

Mr. Henderson: Declare your interest.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not have an interest. I do not sell it. There is an exhibition to be held next week in which I would declare my interest. If anyone has not done his Christmas shopping, he can come and see me when he has viewed that exhibition.
The pursuer would sue the party who had demonstrated the faulty procedure. If that party could establish that the injury had occurred during the period when the non-faulty employer was there—I do not see how he could do that —he would have his remedy by calling him as a second defender. The pursuer's position would be protected, although it is always a difficult matter in law to establish who was at fault if there are successive employers. a is good enough for the pursuer if one is at fault provided that he did not take off his goggles and invoke the concept of non volenti fit injuria.

Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend. The second part of clause 2 replaces section 18 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. I worry about the establishment of the cause of death. In the illustrative example of the tragic case given by my hon. and learned Friend, one could go further and ask, if death had occurred, what had caused it. Subsection (1) of the proposed replacement for section 18 provides:
This section applies to any action in which, following the death of any person from personal injuries, damages are claimed in respect of the injuries or the death.
Subsection (4) provides:


and that person subsequently dies in consequence of those injuries.
That is clear. But if those sensible provisions for relatives and executors apply when pursuing a claim for injury, will they apply when the subject, who might have a valid claim for damages as a result of injury, dies for reasons other than those injuries? I shall be grateful for clarification.

Mr. Eadie: There are anomalies in everything. When one talks about how we die, it is said that we all die from one thing—from want of breath. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the diagnostic procedure. Even if a post-mortem examination were carried out, and the person died from want of breath the medical certificate could give pneumoconiosis or asbestosis as a secondary cause of death. That opens up a tremendous avenue for argument. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with anomalies. My Bill is not bold enough to deal with them. There are bound to be anomalies. I am not producing a perfect Bill which will deal with every anomaly, although we do well to be aware of them.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I should like some clarification of clause 4. It is curious that the second part of the replacement for section 23(A) is not in the Scottish Law Commission's draft Bill published in its report No. 74. The reason why there has been an afterthought on that intrigues me. It is a substantive point. Replacement section 23(A) provides that a Scottish court
shall apply any relevant rules of law of that country relating to the extinction of the obligation or the limitation of time within which proceedings may be brought to enforce the obligation to the exclusion of any corresponding rule of Scots law.
That seems to be mandatory in all circumstances. One normally regards Scots lawyers as extremely jealous of their privileges, and when I looked at the Scottish Law Commission's report on that I followed entirely the argument on page 36, paragraph 7.7, which stated:
In our view, the aim of the law should be to secure that fair effect is given to the proper law as a whole. The foreign rules should be applied whether their effect is to extinguish the obligation or merely to bar a right of action after the lapse of time.
I could follow paragraph 7.11, which states:
We continue to accept that a judgment of the courts of the lex causae upon a limitation point should be regarded as a judgment falling to be recognised in scotland.
I followed the argument there, but the report then continued:
In relation, however, to the decisions of courts other than those of the lex causae … we have concluded … that legislation would be inappropriate and that this is an area which should be left for development by the courts.
It seems that in its draft Bill, which the hon. Gentleman has used for the basis of his Bill, the Law Commission has changed its mind on that point. I should have thought that under clause 4 it would be mandatory in all circumstances for the relevant rules of a country to be taken as being binding on the Scottish court despite the fact that paragraph 7.12 of the commission's report states:
The important question is which legal system should be applied in determining whether a foreign judgment on a limitation point is to be viewed as a decision on the merits. In our view, it should be the lex causae. In order to ascertain whether the lex causae has been applied it would be necessary for the Scottish court to examine the judgment of the foreign court.

I assume that in examining the judgment it would take a view of the judgment, which is not the same thing as accepting the judgment of the foreign court. Paragraph 7.13 states:
This approach has even more justification if the lex causae being applied by the foreign court is the law of Scotland.
That is a valid approach. As the commission states,
It would seem wholly inappropriate if a subsisting obligation under Scots law were to be regarded as discharged by a prior judgment of a foreign court".
I shall be grateful to learn whether the commission's views have been carried forward properly in clause 4.
I am sorry if some of my questions seem naive to my hon. and learned Friends. However, I am impressed by what has been said by those who understand legal matters. They have told me that the Bill clarifies the law substantially and that it will be a valuable measure. If the Bill clarifies the law —I have explained some of the difficulties that I find in understanding parts of it—that is an indication of how grateful we must be to the hon. Member for Midlothian for having sought to clarify it. If, as I expect, my anxieties are not as real as I fear, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): Everyone who has participated in the debate after the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has congratulated him on his good luck in the ballot and applauded the action that he has taken in introducing the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has long enjoyed a reputation for having unswerving and single-minded concern for those who work in the coal mining industry. Those of my Front Bench colleagues who have had to deal with him on coal issues have always been well aware that they were dealing with someone who has not confined himself to an academic or dilettante interest in the subject. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has a deep and abiding involvement which stems from a lifetime of experience in the coal industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) said, my right hon. and hon. Friends may not always agree with what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the industry, but it is acknowledged by us all that he speaks with great authority on coal mining issues.
The hon. Gentleman's preoccupation with the industry may seem at first sight somewhat remote from the subject matter of the Bill. However, we heard him speak movingly about the tragedies that can arise following work over a considerable period in the pits, especially those that stem from that most unpleasant and unhappy of diseases that is called pneumoconiosis. Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), I well remember seeing clients who were suffering from that disease. I well remember also hearing clients who were suffering from pneumoconiosis or asbestosis. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's recollection of the events that he described is still extremely vivid.
Instead of merely showing a broad interest in the coal industry, the hon. Gentleman has shown a sophisticated appreciation of the value of law reforms of this character for those whose interests should be safeguarded. It is important that the points of law with which they are concerned should be made clear. Having secured a place high in the ballot, the hon. Gentleman might well have decided to deal with a fashionable subject without much regard to its long-term worth.
On the face of it, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill is rather technical in its nature. None the less, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is most welcome. The substance of the Bill will benefit all parties concerned in personal injury actions and it is thus to be welcomed. I hope that all hon. Members who are present will give the Bill the support that it deserves. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will give the Bill every support in the House and in the other place. It is an important measure of law reform. based on report No. 74 by the Scottish Law Commission.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill's title is daunting. It has to be admitted that, on the face of it, the material contained within it is scarcely calculated to accelerate the flow of adrenalin in anyone other than the most dedicated of lawyers. However, the Bill is a significant step forward in making the law relating to personal injury actions more readily understood and more likely to be helpful to those who require its protection. We can pride ourselves that Scots law in this area has already gained ready and wide acceptance, but we must look to ways of improving the law. The report of the Scottish Law Commission, on which the Bill is in part based, shows that while the general principles of the law are basically right, there are, as always, areas in which improvements can be made.
The hon. Gentleman's Bill is right to maintain the basic principles and to make amendments to the principal Act of 1973 so as to remove doubts and uncertainties within the framework of the law. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross for his agreement that the basic principles set out in the 1973 Act should be maintained, although. as he would say and as I accept, they require the improvements that the Bill provides.
Substantial work has already been undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission in formulating recommendations for law reform in this area. I think that all hon. Members will acknowledge the work that has been done by the commission. It is opportune that we should be discussing a Bill that seeks to implement the recommendations of the commission. There are times—this is one of them—when the Government are not the most popular of bodies in the eyes of the commission. By introducing the Bill the hon. Gentleman has escaped some of the strictures contained in its latest 18th annual report, which criticises the apparent delay in implementing some of its reports. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the report on which he has based his Bill was dated 16 November 1982. Immediately above that date we see that the report was signed by a distinguished and well known lawyer who bears the name R. Eadie.
I recently had cause to visit the Scottish Law Commission together with my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment at the Scottish Office. The Bill was discussed with members of the commission during the course of that visit and they made clear to both of us how pleased they were to see this piece of legislation coming to the House.
I have some sympathy with the commission's view on delays. It expends considerable time and effort carrying out consultations and formulating reports and recommendations, often in difficult and complex areas of law. It is understandably anxious that its recommendations

should be implemented, and I recognise that at times it is difficult for the commission to temper that anxiety with patience.
The Government recognise the importance of law reform in all areas, especially where the law deals with the right to obtain recompense for injury. However, the Government must be aware of their much wider responsibilities in the promotion of legislation, and all hon. Members will be aware of how crowded the legislative programme can become. In those circum-stances, it is sometimes difficult to find time even for Bills of this importance. In my position as Minister with some responsibility for the Scottish Law Commission. I am especially grateful to the hon. Member for Midlothian for choosing this Bill and for enabling several Scottish Law Commission proposals to pass into law.
The report of the commission, and the hon. Gentleman's Bill, have received widespread approval. I am sure that hon. Members will support the Bill now that its main principles have been explained. I hope that hon. Members realise that the Bill' s apparently technical nature is a veneer overlaying provisions that are of real practical benefit to those pursuing actions to recover damages for personal injury.
We are all aware of the difficulties of those suffering from a disease caused by their working conditions. which may not reveal itself until some considerable time after it has been contracted. Sometimes the disease or injury may not be realised. I know that the hon. Member for Midlothian has experienced more than his fair share of such cases. As he said, it would be inequitable for such cases to become time-barred when the injured person cannot know that he is suffering from an injury that could give rise to a claim for damages. We can take some pride in the fact that Scottish law already caters for such matters. The basic substance of our law has received widespread support, but we must continue to find ways in which the law can be improved and the doubts and uncertainties resolved. As the Bill seeks to do that, it should be welcomed.
We must also recognise that, however proud we may be of the legal system in Scotland, our laws must dovetail with those of other countries. In times of increasing international trade, and with our membership of the European Community, we cannot afford to take too parochial a view. There are times when it is right to look outwards and to deal properly with cases that have a foreign element. In doing so we must have regard to what is generally described as the principle of the comity of law. That is the reasonable principle that our law cannot adopt an isolationist approach and must, so far as possible, have regard to the need for good legal manners between states. I am glad that the Bill seeks to deal with cases where private international law questions arise. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East that the Bill provides that where a foreign law governs an obligation, any rules in the foreign legal system on prescription and limitation of actions must be applied by the Scottish courts to the exclusion of corresponding Scottish rules about such matters. In that respect, the Bill observes good legal manners.
I hope that what I have said illustrates the main aims of the Bill. Before this debate hon. Members might well have asked why we need such apparently technical rules, which prevent actions being raised after the lapse of a period of time from a certain event. The hon. Member for


Midlothian—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross elaborated on it—explained why the rules are necessary, and I agree entirely with his reasoning. It would be inappropriate for all parties to an action—not just the pursuer and defender, but any third parties—to have an open-ended situation in which actions could be raised at any time, either by injured parties or by their representatives or relatives. That would be inequitable for the defender, and the hon. Gentleman will accept that even for an employer there must come a time when the books are closed. The administration of any organisation, even at a time of improving technology, would become seriously overburdened if records had to be kept indefinitely to guard against the possibility of a claim for damages for personal injuries.
If we allowed the position to remain open-ended, it would not be of major benefit to a claimant for damages. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as was mentioned especially by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross, the majority of actions for personal injuries depend, to a greater or lesser extent, on eye-witness evidence of the events leading up to an accident, or the presence of harmful or unsafe working conditions. With the passage of time the recollection of facts and circumstances becomes ever more hazy, and in effect useless in an attempt to ascertain the sequence of events.
A point that has thus far been understated in the debate is that, even if the legislation provides for a three-year period, it would be an error to assume that eye witnesses shall give evidence in court only within three years. It may be a matter for regret and for debate on another occasion, but sometimes it takes far too long, even after the expiry of the three-year period, to hear that evidence in court. A cut-off period is desirable for both sides to a dispute.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, the Bill has the undoubted benefit of dispensing with lethargy among potential claimants and their advisers, legal or otherwise. My hon. and learned Friend, and possibly my hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), will have had experience more than once of the three-year period coming to an end, thus providing a spur to get people round the table and secure settlement of a claim. In those circumstances, the pursuer's lawyer can no longer afford to allow the process of settlement to proceed in a leisurely way. The matter must be sorted out immediately, or he must take the next important step of bringing the case before a court.
My hon. and learned Friend for Perth and Kinross made an extremely valid point when he referred to the well-known phenomenon of the psychological overlay that occurs with those who have suffered personal injury. I am by no means suggesting that all these people are malingerers or are trying to exaggerate their injuries to ensure greater compensation. Being preoccupied with their injuries, which are perhaps the major event in their lives, there is often the prospect that until the action is settled their return to good health will be impeded. It is right, therefore, that the Bill does not attempt to change that basic approach. In that regard the Bill implements the Scottish Law Commission recommendation 10 that the limitation period for personal injury action should remain at three years.
The Government are glad that the Bill does not seek to amend the basic framework around which the detail of the

law is constructed. This is especially so as the Scottish Law Commission, from its extensive consultations prior to the formulation of its report No. 74, ascertained that there was general content in Scotland with the basic principles.
The Bill is, however, an important attempt to move with the times by making the presentation of the law even clearer. That must be desirable, as clarity in the law makes it more readily understood and thus more likely to be used by those whom it is intended to benefit. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East does not believe that the Bill is wholly clear to the layman, but I hope he will accept that it is certainly a considerable improvement on the law at present. I hope, too, in dealing with some of his points to confirm to him that his anxieties are in large measure probably misplaced.
I think that the hon. Member for Midlothian has got the balance right in his Bill and the Government warmly support its introduction. I hope that he will not take this amiss, but the Government may wish to consider whether minor amendments should be introduced at a later stage. I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that if that is done it will not in any way be an effort to neuter his Bill or to distort the essential principles on which it is based, but rather, with his agreement, to improve the detail.
This Bill has not been drafted in haste to take advantage of a place in the private Members' ballot. Any hon. Member who cares to read consultative memorandum No. 45 of the Scottish Law Commission entitled, "Time Limits in Actions for Personal Injuries", which was published on 17 April 1980, will find that there has been a history of deliberation extending back to the inclusion of prescription and limitation in the commission's first programme of reform, which was first approved back in October 1965.
In 1970 the Scottish Law Commission submitted a report which proposed far-reaching changes in Scottish law relating to prescription and limitation in civil actions. This report No. 15, entitled, "Reform of the Law relating to Prescription and Limitation of Actions", sought to rationalise and restate the law. That report was implemented with minor amendments by the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, to which reference has repeatedly been made. It is upon that Act that the hon. Gentleman's Bill seeks to build in its main provisions. Part I of that Act deals with prescription, but excludes actions for personal injuries. Part II of the Act consists of a consolidation, with minor amendments, which dealt almost exclusively with personal injuries.
The Scottish Law Commission report did not suggest any major changes in the law relating to personal injury claims. The commission explained that it did not find it easy to justify the existing distinction in limitation periods between cases of personal injury and cases of damage to property. However, at that time, there had been recent legislation which applied a uniform period of three years for cases of personal injury on both sides of the border. For those reasons the Scottish Law Commission made no specific recommendations in its 1970 report for reforms in the law dealing with personal injury claims.
As I have said, it is, nevertheless, right that the law should be kept under review and be seen to move with the times to meet differing circumstances and problems. Since 1973 there has been a re-examination of the law of England by the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee. The findings of that review were implemented by the Limitation Act 1975.
In addition to those changes, the Scottish Law Commission was aware that there was some dissatisfaction with Scottish law, not the least of which was that the language of part II of the 1973 Act dealing with limitations was felt to be technical and often obscure. It was argued that even if only minor changes were made in the substance of the law a simplified restatement of the law was much needed. For those reasons the Scottish Law Commission felt that a further review of the Scottish position was justified, and that led to its report No. 74, on which the Bill is based. In promoting the Bill the hon. Gentleman had the option of proposing sweeping changes to the law or following closely the recommendations put forward by the Scottish Law Commission. He has chosen the latter course and I am glad that he has done so.
In any reform of the law there will, of necessity, be existing rules or procedures which, because of the passage of time, are found to have little relevance to present-day problems. It is also not unusual to find that because certain parts of the law are right in substance but complex in presentation they lose the benefit which they were designed to confer, simply because people cannot understand what they are all about. We must guard against complacency, but at the same time we should not lose sight of basic sound principles in a flurry of ill-considered and excessive change. The hon. Gentleman's Bill does not suffer from that, based as it is on the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I now make further comments on the detail of his Bill, although he himself gave a clear rundown of its main aims and provisions. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East, may find it helpful if I lift the curtan a little to reveal why certain courses were followed.
Apart from changes to the 1973 Act relating to the provisions dealing with time limits in personal injury cases, the Bill deals with one or two other issues of importance which possibly have not attracted quite the same interest or comment during the debate. The first of these is in clause 1, which inserts a new section 8A in the 1973 Act. This basks in the somewhat luxuriant title of
Extinction of obligations to make contributions between wrongdoers.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East had cause to wonder what on earth that was all about.
In any case involving damages claims, the court, in awarding damages or expenses, can apportion the total sum to be paid between or among the persons found liable to make payment. If, for example, two people are found by the courts to be at fault in a motor accident in which, say, a passenger or pedestrian is injured—the type of example that has already been put to the House—the court might award damages on the basis that one of the two people was 60 per cent. to blame and the other 40 per cent. The injured person could seek to recover the sums due from both parties in accordance with the share allocated by the court.
Alternatively, the injured person might simply recover the whole amount of damages from one of the two defendants. It would be inequitable not to allow the party who found that he had to pay to the full amount to the injured person to recover an appropriate amount from others who shared the blame. That is the essential principle of contribution between wrongdoers, or, as it is technically described in the law, an action of relief.
Until 1963 there was no special time limit on the exercise of that right to enforce the obligation on another wrongdoer to contribute to the amount paid. Since 1963, however, a two-year limitation period has been imposed. That is, the right to obtain relief or contribution cannot be exercised by raising an action for payment after two years have expired from the date of the award of damages. The hon. Member for Midlothian, the Bill's promoter, explained in his opening speech what is meant by prescription and limitation. I am grateful to him for doing so early in the debate. I hope that it makes the Bill a little clearer to all who participate in the debate, but it will do no harm to remind hon. Members that prescription either consolidates or extinguishes a right or obligation, whereas limitation does not affect the right or obligation itself, but merely makes it unenforceable in a court. Whether that really amounts to a full explanation is not for me to say, but I hope that it is an accurate description of the law.
Bearing that in mind, the time limit applying to the actions of relief is a limitation, and is thus contained in part II of the 1973 Act. The Scottish Law Commission considered that aspect. It felt that there was strong justification for a short time limit, especially where the wrongdoers were parties to the original action. The commission therefore recommended retention of the two-year time limit but it considered that prescription rather than limitation should be the basis for the time limit.
Clause 1 therefore implements the commission's recommendation by retaining the two-year time limit, but reclassifies it as a prescription rather than a limitation. 'The effect of that change is that, rather than simply becoming unenforceable, the obligation to pay a proportion of the damages will be extinguished after two years.
I now come to what we might term the meat in the sandwich—clause 2. I do not think that I do an injustice to the other parts of the Bill when I say that this clause must be regarded as its main provision. Certainly the hon. Gentleman paid particular attention to it during his speech. The clause will certainly be of most interest to those involved in personal injury cases.
The clause inserts new sections 17 and 18 into the 1973 Act. They deal respectively with claims for personal injury not resulting in death and claims for injuries where death has occurred as a result of the injury. I said earlier that one of the main aims of the Scottish Law Commission and the hon. Member for Midlothian was to make the law more presentable. If we compare sections 17 to 19 of the 1973 Act with the new sections in clause 2, we can see a definite transformation. I am not sure whether it makes the arrangement for limitation change from an ugly duckling into a swan, but there is certainly some improvement.
I can tell those who complain frequently and bitterly about the manner in which changes to the law are often produced that the approach taken in the Bill is very desirable. Rather than attempting to stick little bits of paper into existing statutes — making it almost impossible for anyone other than an expert to understand —the Bill has followed the more desirable course of inserting two new sections into the 1973 Act, to replace two unclear sections.
New section 17 deals with claims for personal injuries not resulting in death. The Bill retains a limitation period of three years, after which the claim cannot be enforced by action in the courts. The actual period formed part of the Scottish Law Commission's investigations. In both Scotland and England less time is allowed for pursuing


claims for personal injuries than for other claims. In the main, the period for other claims — subject to the exceptions mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross—is five years. It may seem a little odd that the law on personal injuries is less generous than the law for someone whose property is damaged.
In its consultative memorandum the commission quite properly declined to express a firm opinion one way or the other, but, rather, sought advice from those involved in the day-to-day problems. The commission's report discloses that, on consultation, views on whether the period should remain at three years or be extended to five years were almost equally divided. Those who opposed a change said that since actions were in the main put into court only at the last possible moment, a five-year period would simply mean a further delay of two years. On the other hand, it was argued that an extension of the period would be of assistance where the future development of an injury might be difficult to predict. That might be the case in orthopaedic problems. The commission doubted whether an extension to take account of problems arising in a minority of cases would be justified. It recommended, rightly in the Government's view, that on balance a period of three years should be retained. The hon. Member for Midlothian also put forward that view.
I am glad that the Bill also retains the basic principles that the limitation period should run from the date of injury or the date of knowledge. The commission's consultations revealed support for the existing law that the time limit should be reckoned from the date of the injury with an extension of the period for as long as the injured party remained in a state of justifiable ignorance of his injuries or their extent.
It might surprise some hon. Members to learn that the Bill does not attempt to define the actual date of injury. Some hon. Members may ask why. The short answer is that it would be extremely difficult to arrive at any suitable definition. By their nature, personal injuries cases raise problems of determining the exact date of an injury being sustained. It will readily be understood that this is especially so in cases involving progressive industrial diseases. It would be impossible for the legislature to take account of all the facts and circumstances that might arise in any case or number of cases. There must be some flexibility to enable the courts to make appropriate inquiries into the facts of any particular case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East mentioned a problem that has been the subject of debate in the House—that at Cairnryan in Galloway. I shall refer to a 1962 case before the Court of Session involving Mr. John Clark, a workman employed as a dresser in a foundry. He was X-rayed when he first entered his employer's service, and his lungs were found to be clear. Subsequent X-rays over a period of years confirmed that Mr. Clark had contracted pneumoconiosis. The judge hearing the case found that, having regard to the progressive nature of pneumoconiosis and the difficulty of attributing its onset to an exact date, the question whether the limitation period should apply could not be decided until an inquiry into the facts had taken place.
That case relates to the type of problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East. People in a particular industry often change their employer, and

there is undoubtedly difficulty in trying to determine during which period of employment an industrial disease began its unhappy progress. The general problems that we have considered and that case reveal the need for flexibility, and it is right that the Bill does not seek to impose rigidity on consideration of these cases.
The Bill relates personal injury to an "act or omission", and the hon. Gentleman has given us his reasons for including that expression. I support the amendment that he seeks to make. I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is desirable that legislation should avoid the use of pejorative expressions wherever possible. The hon. Gentleman has given us a definite improvement by substituting "act or omission" for "act, neglect, or default". Hon. Members will agree with me that, in retaining the principle which extends the time limit in the case of a person not being "aware of his injury", the Bill is couched in a much more readable and readily understandable form than the replaced sections.
In essence, before the time limit can commence, the injured party must be aware of three relevant facts: first, that he is suffering from injuries sufficiently serious to justify an action for damages being brought; secondly, that the injuries were attributable to an "act or omission"—I have already applauded the inclusion of that term—and, thirdly, that the act or omission was on the part of the defender, the person whom he seeks to sue.
Only when all those facts are in the knowledge of the injured person will the time limit begin to run. I hope that that clarifies the position. The Bill, quite rightly, does not give carte blanche to the injured person. If it was reasonably practicable for him to have become aware of the relevant facts, the time limit will be reckoned from that date, whether the person concerned was, or was not, aware of the necessary facts.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Midlothian can envisage a miner being well aware of the fact that he is coughing badly and finding great difficulty in moving about. Neither he nor anyone else can ignore that and pretend that it has not happened. He should go to see his doctor to ascertain whether his unfitness and lung restriction are the consequences of pneumoconiosis or asbestosis, and not some other cause. It is a matter of common sense that there should be a provision to cover such circumstances.
The Scottish Law Commission found that ignorance of fault or liability should not be made a relevant fact, and it did not recommend any change in the law on that point. The commission recommended, however, that the law should contain a clear statement. I am pleased that the Bill picks up that recommendation in new section 22(3) in clause 3. This makes it clear that the question whether any act or omission could be the subject of an action is considered irrelevant in ascertaining the state of knowledge of the injured party. I am pleased that the Bill contains provisions in the proposed new sections 17 and 18 dealing with legal disability. The hon. Gentleman has given us his reasons for those provisions.
There were certainly some anomalies in this area and I agree with the line that the hon. Gentleman has taken. The Bill retains the general requirement that a person suffering from a legal disability by being under age or of unsound mind should not be prejudiced by the running of the limitation period. Such a person is clearly in no position to do anything to stop the time running by raising


a court action while suffering from that legal disability. The hon. Gentleman gave one or two examples. Perhaps I may elaborate briefly on this.
A child under age is clearly under a legal disability. The 1973 Act, however, made a distinction for children in the custody of grandparents as well as in the normal close relationship between parent and child, but excluded other close relatives and guardians. Responses received by the Scottish Law Commission supported the view that that distinction should be removed as it was unfair to a child whose parents might have a contrary interest. The example has already been cited in which the parent having custody of the child was at fault and was the cause of the injury suffered by the child.
On balance, therefore, the commission concluded that the rules on legal disability should be extended to claims for personal injury. The Bill is to be commended for picking up that recommendation and for the removal of the distinction between a child and a child in the custody of his parents.
Another problem which caused great concern was that of supervening mental illness. Basically, the existing law provides that a time limit should not run against a person suffering from unsoundness of mind. That exemption does not extend, however, to a person who is of sound mind at the time of commencement of the time limit but subsequently suffers from mental illness. At present. that person's disability would not prevent the time limit from continuing to run. Again, it is a matter of common sense that that could cause considerable disadvantage and prejudice.
South of the border, the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee tackled this problem. Reference to its comments graphically illustrates the problem. It says:
There is something objectionable in a rule which prevents time running against a person who is knocked down by a motor vehicle and thereby imediately rendered mentally ill, but which lets time run against him if the accident merely causes 24 hours' unconsciousness followed by mental illness".
The Scottish Law Commission has adopted a straightforward approach to this problem. Recommendation No. 11 states that time limits should not run against some one suffering from a mental illness either before or after the date when the time limit commenced. That straightforward approach is reflected in the fact that the subsequently occurring mental illness does not have to be connected with the event giving rise to the personal injury.
In introducing the Bill the hon. Member for Midlothian stressed throughout that legislation must not be seen to favour one party excessively at the expense of the other. I believe that his Bill strikes that balance, especially in relation to people suffering from legal disability.
The Bill picks up the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation No. 11 by narrowing the rules on legal disabaility in a particular way. Under the present law, the legal disability rules apply to anyone who is able to exercise the right of action.
As the hon. Gentleman said, that includes executors and assignees of an injured person. That means that a defender in an action can be prejudiced by the right to pursue the claim being transferred to a person who is under a legal disability, thus interrupting the limitation period. I agree that that is difficult to justify. I am pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman also agrees, because he has limited the rules on legal disability so that they will operate only in respect of
the person who sustained the injuries".

It is interesting to note that all of these improvements can be found in one small subsection extending to only five lines. That is indicative of how simple words which might seem to be accidental are in fact the product of a good deal of careful thought which is easily overlooked unless we take the trouble, as I hope we are doing today, to look into what lies behind the words.
New section 18 deals with actions where death has resulted from personal injuries. Its contents follow largely the same basic principles as those applied in new section 17, which concerns cases in which death did not result. I hope that it will not be necessary to rehearse them. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East wanted to understand the detail of cases to which new sections 17 and 18 would apply. He will find that the explanatory note in the Scottish Law Commission's document spells such details out clearly. The document provides many examples of situations in which those sections would apply.
At present, a claimant in a fatal accident, be he an executor or relative of the deceased, has three years from the date of death, or from the date of his knowledge that a claim should be made—whichever is later—in which to commence proceedings. It is recognised that relatives' rights are different from those of the deceased, being designed to compensate losses which they, rather than the deceased, suffer. On the other hand, their rights are not wholly independent of the deceased because they arise from the same wrong.
Thus, if a deceased's own rights were time-barred at the date of his death, the rights of his relatives are also time barred. The commission carried out consultations on whether the rule should apply only to executors because of the separate rights which relatives acquire on the injured person's death.
Opinions were expressed that that would open the way to prosecution of long-delayed claims and the commission recommended in its report that this rule should apply both to executors and to relatives.
That recommendation is to be found in new section 18(4). It prevents executors or relatives from bringing an action based on injuries, or death from such injuries, if an action is already time-barred at the date of the injured person's death.
Clause 3 picks up some necessary supplementary provisions.

Mr. Henderson: My hon. and learned Friend has explained several points. With regard to the point that he has just dealt with, am I right in assuming that the limitation applies to death from any cause, and not just to death as a result of the injuries?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a rather complicated matter. No claim on death would be possible if that death was not in some way the consequence of an injury caused by someone else. Does that explain my hon. Friend's point?

Mr. Henderson: I apologise, because I did no: put the question very well. Even if death were not caused by the injury, could a claim still be made for the injury provided that such a claim was made within a reasonable time after the death?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Perhaps my hon. Friend misunderstands. Perhaps we should take the example of a wife. A wife would have a claim for the death


of her husband if his death was caused by someone else. If he suffered an injury for some time before then and, in the way of things, died, she would have no claim arising from that injury which did not cause his death, nor would she have a claim arising from his death. I hope that my hon. Friend understands the distinction.
I have already mentioned the issue dealt with in new section 22(3) and I do not propose to spend much time on the remainder. I should mention, however, the point raised in new section 22(27). This is important and deals with the knowledge of the pursuer. This subsection makes it clear that the test knowledge is at all times related to the original pursuer. It would be wrong to allow an assignation of a right of action to delay matters. This could be the case if the assignee can show that his knowledge can be reckoned only from the date when he took over the action.
The Bill takes the approach that the assignee must take over the case with the knowledge which the pursuer is considered to have. Thus the time limit will continue to run from the time the original pursuer ought to have been aware of the facts. I hope hon. Members will agree that this is the right approach.
Clause 4 departs from the domestic features of the Bill and introduces an international flavour. I can do no better than to repeat the view of the hon. Member for Midlothian, that the clause provides that in cases where the foreign law governs any situation the rules of limitation and prescription of that law should be applied. That matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East, who asked whether the provision related only to personal injuries or whether there was a wider application. The short answer is that it goes wider than personal injuries.
Some hon. Members and some outside the House may be indignant that our corresponding rules of Scottish law are specifically excluded. It might be thought that we are taking the international approach too far. However, we need to take a balanced view. If we are to cold-shoulder foreign legal systems, we can hardly be surprised if we are treated in a similar fashion. We want to avoid that.
We cannot simply ignore the fact that in a case before the Scottish courts there is an obligation which, in principle, is governed by the law of a foreign country. The general aim of the law on this matter of the choice of law rules is to secure that, despite the fact that an action may have been raised in the Scottish courts which might otherwise have been raised in foreign courts, the decision which will be reached in the Scottish court as to whether the action is barred by lapse of time is similar to that which would have been reached by the foreign court. On that basis it is reasonable that the foreign rules of prescription and limitation should be applied, rather than the corresponding rules of Scottish law.
However, this will have the result that if the foreign limitation period is longer than that provided under Scottish law there might remain the possibility of litigation in the Scottish courts.
The Scottish Law Commission originally thought that that would be unfair and it therefore proposed that the long negative prescription, which has the effect of totally extinguishing obligations after 20 years, should apply to such claims which might otherwise remain enforceable under the foreign law. However in its report the commission re-examined that proposal and the Bill before us contains no such provision.
It has been suggested to me that the commission's earlier view was right and that, as it noted in its report, it might become grossly inequitable to enforce certain rights against defenders after the lapse of a long period. I am not convinced that the Bill's provisions on this matter should be amended, but I am looking at this further, along with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, to see whether it might be appropriate to bring before the House, at a later stage, an amendment specifically to deal with that detailed point on private international law.
The hon. Member for Midlothian has rightly included some transitional provisions. It is necessary to preserve existing rights, obligations and proceedings. To do otherwise would be unfair. The proviso that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East mentioned in his comparison between the Bill and the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations covers that. The provision is a transitional arrangement.
I have talked for some time on the background to the Bill and the detailed provisions of the Bill itself. I hope hon. Members will agree with me that the subject matter of the Bill is worthy of detailed deliberation consonant with the detailed deliberations which have gone into its formulation and drafting.
I repeat the sentiments of the hon. Member for Midlothian. I am glad that an opportunity has been found to implement these very important recommendations in a sphere of law where the need for clarification has been recognised for some time. I am sure that if the Bill passes into law it will be of great benefit—the hon. Member must not underestimate the value of the Bill—to those who are involved in day-to-day practice with this area of law.
The Bill strikes the necessary balance between claimant and person claimed against and will assist not only those who are involved in claims, but also those, such as solicitors or trade union officials, who find themselves having to give advice on such claims.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promoting this Bill. 1 commend the Bill to the House and urge hon. Members to support it in obtaining its Second Reading today.

Mr. Gerald Malone: I am conscious of the fact that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is labouring under a fusillade of congratulations from both sides of the House. When an hon. Member draws a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills, the great temptation is to pick what looks like the most attractive parcel under the Christmas tree. However, to do so, does not always benefit the law or further the many causes that require the passing of important legislation. The fact that the hon. Member for Midlothian has chosen this important subject for his Bill is very much to his credit.
The Bill is a refining instrument in an area of law which has required constant refining over the years. It may be a matter of public disquiet that such an important subject requires further refining, but it is worth while to examine the history of personal injury legislation. As industries and the knowledge about how they operate have developed, so have legislation and practice. The hon. Member for Midlothian has, quite rightly, set his Bill in the context of the mining industry. I know only too well from my own legal practice, the roots of which are principally in


Blantyre — which the hon. Member will know is a mining community in which my father took on many mining cases in the days before legal aid could be used to support the miners' claims — of the difficulties and complexities that surround the pursuit of personal injury claims of this type in the courts, and especially the problems of prescription and limitation facing litigants.
As technology has developed and the scope of personal injuries has become wider, so also has the law had to develop. A new approach is required in dealing with the law of limitation of actions when considering modern technology and the dangers presented by radiation and the marketing of new drugs. That is why I welcome the provision that the long negative prescription of 20 years will no longer apply in cases of this type and that the only limitation will be the three-year rule. A layman may regard a period of 20 years as inconceivable in personal injury actions, and believe that after 20 years a claim should have expired.
But I say emphatically that in new industry, especially where radiation is involved and when new drugs can be brought on to the market without their consequences being seen for many years, it is important to remove the 20-year prescriptive period. I welcome that aspect of the Bill.
I do not intend to go through this measure with a fine-toothed comb. I prefer to pick out those aspects of it which interest me. The second of them that I highlight is how to define when the injury occurred. It was widely acknowledged throughout the legal profession that the definition in the 1973 Act was lacking in many respects and that the test of reasonableness in the Act was not adequate. I welcome the new test which is included in the Bill allowing both actual knowledge and reasonable knowledge in the eyes of the court to be the test of the date of the injury and the period from which the limitation will run. That is a great improvement.
The third aspect concerns the advisability of restricting the limitation to three years. I have listened with some interest to what has been said about the limitation being as much to spur on the legal profession as to protect individuals on both sides of litigation. I wonder whether in the true sense of equity we should be looking to limitation as a spur on the profession rather than as simply a device to govern the relationship between pursuer and defender.
Many of us in the legal profession are prepared to accept that, when the triennium is on the point of expiring, action seems to take place with increasing rapidity. It would be foolish to suggest there should be no limitation of this kind. As long as the period of three years does not unnecessarily militate against fairness to the pursuer or the defender, it is correct to leave a period of three years as the basic test.
There are some problems to bear in mind about that three-year period. It is only fair to the legal profession as a whole to point out that as soon as a member of the profession is instructed in a reparation claim it is not proper practice simply to raise litigation. Proper practice is to investigate the claim fully and negotiate with those who are in a position to settle it. All those avenues of approach should be exhausted before any litigant is, in some senses, condemned to an even longer process of litigation in the courts.
To say that an action has commenced does not suggest when the action may be finished. In many cases the best interests of the pursuer are served by compromising and

settling claims before they get to the lengthy and sometimes harrowing process of court actions. I ask all those hon. Members to bear in mind that the three-year period can be used to great effect in allowing litigants to settle claims rather than pursuing them in court.
I am pleased that this measure has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that that is a source of great pride to the hon. Member for Midlothian. I pay tribute again to him. He has picked on a very important area of the law. It is one which affects him closely. If I may extend the analogy that we have discussed about how this branch of the law affects workmen in industry, I suggest that it is a very workmanlike piece of legislation which will bring great long-term benefit.

Mr. Michael Hirst: I echo the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland in congratulating the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on introducing this legislation. The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated further on the sincere and moving way in which he did so.
I hesitate to strike a slightly discordant note, but I ought not to let the occasion pass without saying how sorry I am that more hon. Members are not here to welcome this important legislation for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Midlothian said that it was not the liveliest Bill to introduce. I accept that, given the issues facing Scotland at present, it is a small measure. However, it is of great significance to the people of Scotland.
I represent a constituency where, traditionally, there has been much mining activity and I have come face to face with the victims of pneumoconiosis, who have struggled to get up the steps into the school where I hold my surgeries, who gasp for breath and who have considerable health problems as a result of the years that they have spent in mines. I welcome any measure that will enhance their right to compensation for the injuries that they have suffered.
I have a foot in both camps. The Conservative Benches have been well attended by hon. Members with a deep and detailed knowledge of the legal profession. Some 17 years ago, as an undergraduate in the university of Glasgow law department, I came across my first long negative prescription. When I had finished that. I never thought that there would be another occasion on which I would have cause to refer to it. Following the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), I am glad that I recognised that lawyers tended to be tedious, boring and rather long-winded, and so eschewed the legal profession for lusher pastures.
I wish to speak on this important matter because of a deep constituency interest. I have been a Member for less than six months. My first constituency case related to the widow of a service man who, in the opinion of my constituent, contracted cancer as a result of exposure to the tests that took place in the south Pacific in the 1950s. I know that inquiries are taking place into this incident and that it would be wrong for me to speak further about it. Moreover, the position in law of my constituent's late husband is somewhat different from that of an ordinary member of the community, because he was a service man.
That case was followed by another relating to a constituent who is still alive. In the late 1950s he was a


research chemist engaged in the plastics and rubber industry. He spent many years establishing a causal link between his continuing debility and the materials with which he was involved in his research work. Eventually he established the medical connection between exposure to those chemicals and his current state of health, but he is time-barred from raising an action. Therefore. I welcome this legislation as a means of bringing him justice. Another constituent has founded the Cancer Prevention Society. The object of this charity is to promote public awareness of the hazards of noxious substances, which the hon. Member for Midlothian will recognise as being just as important for the victims of pneumoconiosis.
There is agreement on both sides of the House that the present law is unsatisfactory and that there are areas of doubt arising from the complicated wording of the 1973 Act. The worst problem—the Catch 22 situation—is the interaction of the long negative prescription and the three-year limitation of action which faces my constituent. Therefore, I welcome the Bill because it will eliminate the long negative prescription for personal injury.
I also welcome the redefinition of the three-year period within which a person must bring his action forward. I am glad that under the Bill consideration will be given specifically to the individual claimant, rather than to the test of the reasonable person who has access to appropriate advice. We must all welcome that enthusiastically.
On a more general note, we must be glad that there is now a proposal to bring Scottish law into line with the draft convention of the European Community which seeks to introduce uniform rules about the rights of people in actions for recompense for personal injury.
The health and safety at work legislation has not applied for much of the lifetime of people who are in their 40s, 50s or 60s. It is possible that causes of injury may be revealed in future for those who, during their working life, have been exposed to noxious substances and may not be aware of the dangers to their health.
Medical research may confirm a causal connection between injury and death and exposure to carcinogens. I have the report of the Cancer Prevention Society, which was founded by my constituent. It refers to no fewer than

88 chemical carcinogens listed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. I am conscious that the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive has identified only 41 such chemical carcinogens. The American list contains a further 47 subjects which are reconised as carcinogenic.
The Scottish people should have the right to recover damages for injuries arising from exposure to such things in the past, whether as victims of pneumoconiosis or of exposure to carcinogens. I welcome the Bill.
I am encouraged by the fact that the work of the Scottish Law Commission—that body of able and erudite men—is being recognised today. It is to be hoped that it will soon have the opportunity to see the results of its exhaustive, readable and well presented document brought into law.

Mr. Eadie: With the leave of the House, I have three brief points to make in reply to the debate.
First, I appreciate the generous comments made by hon. Members. How can one express thanks for such generosity and for the general welcome that has been given to the Bill. I know of an 85-year-old lady who today will probably give a nod of approval to both her sons. I thank hon. Members for their genorosity.
My second point relates to the subjects raised by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). We should discuss in Committee any points of difficulty or matters of clarification.
Thirdly, I found the Solicitor-General's all-embracing welcome of the Bill helpful. He gave a type of undertaking when he said that he would want perhaps to study the Bill and table amendments in Committee. I welcome the strictures he imposed when he said that the purpose would be to strengthen rather than to weaken the Bill. Clearly, neither I nor any hon. Member in the House today, will quarrel with anything that can be done to strengthen the Bill.
With those few comments, I hope that the House will see fit to give my Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committe pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Act 1982 (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The luck of the draw—how I wish that that luck had been a little better—has given me the privilege of seeking at a relatively early stage in the life of this Parliament to implement one part of the policy on which members of my party were elected to this place in June. It was a policy which earned my party 65 per cent. of Northern Ireland seats in the House of Commons, a proportion that the Conservative party, with its unprecedented success, has not equalled in Great Britian. However, no one could or would seek to deny the right of the Conservative Government to administer and legislate on the basis of their democratic achievement. It will be noted that I was on my guard not to use the expression "election pledge". My party was careful, as any party should be, to distinguish between actions which lie in a party's power to achieve and those which clearly should be presented to the electorate as objectives, desirable perhaps, but not necessarily within the power of the party to command.
When we told the electorate that we should sooner or later obtain an end to direct rule, that was a pledge. It was a pledge that we were entitled to make because we know that sooner or later the House will be unable to deny to the people of one part of the United Kingdom that which it accords to another. This argument has been consistently advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of my party. My right hon. Friend has further pledged:
Whatever the future of the Assembly, we must get rid of direct rule. Not for us vain attempts to bridle it—only its removal will satisfy us. For it is monstrous that such a system devised in 1972 for one year should have been preserved for the succeeding 10 years. That has surely made a mockery of the word 'temporary' by which the process is described. That annual renewal of direct rule has the effect of implanting in the minds of our enemies the belief that Ulster is held on a 12 month lease. How can there be political stability on the basis of one year at a time? How great is the encouragement for terrorists to overthrow a system which is claimed to be only temporary?
That is not, however, the part of our policy with which I am currently concerned. I am concerned with our stated policy that
We will seek amendment of the Northern Ireland Act 1982 so as to transform the Assembly into a structure acceptable to Unionists.
That is an objective which could be construed as giving special treatment and a special constitutional framework to our Province and one, consequently, which we cannot demand as of right. However, devolution is a prospect which successive Governments have repeatedly held out to Ulster and which was the professed purpose of the Act which my Bill seeks to amend. The object of my Bill, therefore, is to enable the Act to achieve what its authors declared to have always been its intention.
As the Act reached the statute book last year, it held out the prospect of devolution but only as a tantalising and unobtainable result, always just out of reach, like the luscious fruit which hung a few inches above that unfortunate character in Greek mythology.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for his great assistance in

bringing the Bill before the House. [Interruption.] It does not behove the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) to question my right hon. Friend's parliamentary awareness. My right hon. Friend needs no lessons in parliamentary awareness from anyone. From the wording and construction of the Act, not an atom of real responsibility or administrative, let alone legislative, power was to accrue to the Assembly unless the condition of power sharing was fulfilled. My Bill seeks to delete those sections of the Act.
We are not accustomed to power sharing in the House. It never occurs to us that the two main parties, although the programmes on which they were elected have more in common than do the policies of Unionists and Republicans in Ulster, should share power in the Government of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we have never believed that the insistence on power sharing in Ulster, which contradicts the principles of British democracy, was genuinely aimed at the extension of democratic devolution to the Province. We see it rather as a dangerous ambiguity on the part of those who, at least in Ulster, wish to be all things to all men. We cannot accept a structure by which those who lose an election are given parity with or a veto upon those who win an election. My Bill puts to the acid test the seriousness of the Government's professed wish to devolve legislative and administrative powers to a locally, democratically elected Assembly in Ulster.
However, we do not wish to be misunderstood We are ready to accord to any minority that secures the election of some of its members, and that seeks to attain its ends by constitutional means, whatever rights the fact of that election properly secures for them. That is the reason for a further provision in the Bill, which I hope will be given a Second Reading today.
There is a fundamental distinction between the legislative powers and the administrative powers of an Assembly, although I acknowledge that the two are linked in the 1973 and the 1982 Acts, as they were linked in legislation enacted for Northern Ireland in 1920. The distinction is that legislation lays down major policy, and creates the framework within which the country is administered. Therefore, legislation must be proposed and can be enacted only by those sharing similar aims and acknowledging collective responsibility for what they introduce and carry into law. In the context of a power to change or to make laws, power sharing between those with opposite political views is even more inconceivable in Ulster than it is in the House.
However, the same considerations do not apply to administration. Here I need not belabour the theory, because in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Ulster, administrative power sharing is busy at work in local government. Local government decisions are taken by a majority vote, whether in committee or in the entire body of the council. Minorities not only have a voice in debate, but are accorded a place and influence, sometimes a distinguished one, in the workings of the authority, proportionate to their electoral support and their personal qualities and contributions.
Last year, before I was elected to the House, some of my collegues on the Official Unionist Bench proposed amendments to the Northern Ireland Bill on this very point. It always appeared to us that the Government, in framing the Northern Ireland Act 1982, made the attainment of any degree of local devolution even more


unattainable by treating legislative and administrative devolution as inseparably linked. My Bill would cut the cord between those Siameses twins.
The Secretary of State, so far as I can judge, is an exponent of gradualism. After all, he built into his Act a mechanism for inch-by-inch devolution. In that same spirit my Bill proposes to make it possible to devolve administration, however gradual, to the Assembly without attaching to that devolution the veto of power sharing.
The Secretary of State and the Government will ultimately have to do something about the Northern Ireland Act 1982. The Assembly's best friend could not imagine, when contemplating the original non-participation of two of the parties elected to it and the fact that the largest and by far the most representative of all the parties in Ulster can no longer in honour continue to participate in it, that in its existing form it serves any useful purpose. The Bill invites the House to make the absolute minimum of change which could offer some prospect of a future for the Assembly.
I referred at the beginning of my speech to certain things that the House could not in the long run continue to deny Ulster. One of those things, in the words of our manifesto, is
democratic local government controlling the same services as in Great Britain".
That will have to come.
The House of Commons cannot go on insisting year after year that the citizens of a part of the United Kingdom shall have their vital social and community services administered by non-accountable appointed boards. I hope that the Government will be wise enough and clear-sighted enough to see that the Assembly could, initially, be transformed into a vehicle for fulfilling that basic requirement of fairness and justice for the people of the Province, whom we on this Bench represent. My Bill gives the Government the opportunity, if they care to grasp it, of doing that.
It is in that spirit that I ask the House to give a Second Reading to my Bill and thus enable all these matters to be examined and debated further by the due processes of the House of Commons.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland looking at this House today will see what an interest the House of Commons has in Northern Ireland and the future of its citizens. Official Unionist party members tell the people of Northern Ireland of the vast importance to them of this House of Commons and that though they boycott the Assembly, this House must be supported because it is here that the power in security lies. How is it that some of them were absent—indeed, all of them were absent apart from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—from a recent debate—

Mr. James Nicholson: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not be giving way in this debate. This is a Friday. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) does not understand that this is a Friday. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to talk for longer, he will get up and continue to get up. I am making a point and I will make it today.
Where were all those hon. Members on the Official Unionist Bench when the Secretary of State had a statement to make about the Darkley murders? Where were they? This is the House that has security in its control. They were conspicuously absent. The only Member present was an hon. Member not born and bred in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) tried to say that he was present. I want to nail that claim today — he was conspicuous by his absence. Yet he found time later in the evening to vote on the Telecommunications Bill. Surely the death of people in Northern Ireland and the safety of those living there are more important than a Bill before the House.
This Bill was discussed in the depleted Assembly, where more people took an interest in it than we see hon. Members in the House today. I see only two Members of the official Opposition, four Members of the Conservative party and two Ministers.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I want to nail the lie of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fairly new Member. I am sure that he can rephrase what he wishes to say without going outside the bounds of order.

Mr. Walker: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to nail the accusation about my non-attendance in the House. I want to say categorically that I was standing outside the Bar for the whole of the time that the matter was discussed, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) stood next to me. I was in the House throughout the time that the Telecommunications Bill was debated, but the hon. Member for Antrim, North skulked home to Belfast, leaving the people of Northern Ireland disfranchised by his non-attendance here. We were taking steps to protect the jobs of thousands of people in the Province while he and his two colleagues skulked home to do those little things that disrupt the policy for which we are fighting. The hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of something that is completely untrue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can get away from the whereabouts of hon. Members and return to the substance of the Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Member for Belfast, North was standing outside the Chamber when the security of the people of Northern Ireland was being discussed, that makes him doubly condemned in the eyes of the people of Northern Ireland. It is disgraceful' for a Member representing Northern Ireland to stand outside the Bar of the Chamber—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) thinks that that is something to laugh about, he should remember the widows and orphans who are weeping in Northern Ireland.
I will not be indicted in this House by the hon. Member for Belfast, North, who was not present and did not take part in the debate. Everyone who rose to his feet following the statement was called by the Chair. The hon. Gentleman did not take part. I will not take from him any accusation about skulking home. I visited the injured and the widowed and orphaned. He cannot tell me that I should not have done that simply because the right hon. Member for Down, South will not visit one injured person or console one person who has been bereaved. The hon.


Gentleman will learn that the people of North Belfast will give him their answer at a future date. I leave him to sulk behind the precincts of the Chamber while men and women are being murdered in Northern Ireland and their security is being discussed in the House.
The House can see from that exchange what we are really dealing with today. It is an attempt to tell the people of Northern Ireland that the Assembly should be smashed, in keeping with Sinn Fein policy. I see that there are some Sinn Fein supporters on the Bench below the gangway. Their programme is to smash Stormont. The only barrier to a deal between London and Dublin is the elected forum of Northern Ireland, in which the Unionists have a solid majority and can make known their wishes and take their stand in defence of the Union. If the Official Unionists wish to sweep away the forum and bulwark of the elected representative Assembly they can do so, but the consequences will be on their heads.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not give way. There is an unwritten law in the House that if an hon. Member accuses someone, he should give him an opportunity to reply. I did not need to let the hon. Member for Belfast, North reply, but I did so because of the courtesies of the House. If I had known that he would make such a statment, I should not have given way. His statement was a complete fabrication of the facts that I had put to the House.
It is interesting to notice the way in which the Official Unionists have acted. In Northern Ireland, an attempt is being made to tell the people that this fight in the House is for full-blooded legislative and executive devolution for Northern Ireland. The Official Unionist spokesmen have been telling the people that they will make the Government declare their position and that they want a Stormont with real powers and authority.
Strangely, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) did not quote from the Official Unionist manifesto. That manifesto told the people of Northern Ireland that they would be represented " in true tradition" at Stormont. "In true tradition" at Stormont is not shown by the boycott of the Assembly, which is also Sinn Fein policy. Perhaps the Official Unionists have adopted the Sinn Fein policy—"We, ourselves, alone". The Official Unionists also said that they would strive constructively to use the Assembly as "a further step". How can they strive constructively to use the Assembly when they have withdrawn from it?
The manifesto also states:
We pledge, as our forebears did, to work for the best interests of Ulster within the United Kingdom, and will seek to transform the Assembly into a positive instrument for the well-being of Ulster".
The Official Unionists are striving, not to bring about Stormont, as their forebears did, but for its complete annihilation.
I come to what I call the "Enoch Powell" policy, which the right hon. Member for Down, South has advocated continually in the House. He made similar representations during the passage of the Bill. The right hon. Member went to the constituency of the former hon. Member for Londonderry and made a speech in which he said that Stormont was dead and buried and would never be resurrected. Today, he finds himself in great difficulty. No wonder he is not present. The right hon. Member when

addressing a meeting of the faithful in the Ballymageough Orange hall in his constituency, was reported in the "Rathfriland Outlook" as saying:
He didn't believe that the Government would fall into the trap of devolved government for Ulster".
His right hon. and hon. Friends are now telling the people that we are here today to make the Government give us devolved government. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said that the Government would never fall into that trap
but rather would take a more careful approach with the involvement of local government".
We were told today that the cord of the Siamese twins must be cut. That is a bad metaphor, because if the cord is cut both will die — and that is exactly what will happen. The Government have already declared their policy on this. Perhaps the promoter of the Bill has not read the appropriate documents. He should have taken more care to make the Bill consistent when he drafted it.

Mr. Peter Robinson: In referring to inconsistencies in the Bill, is my hon. Friend drawing attention to the fact that the 1982 Act makes frequent reference to widespread acceptance throughout the community? That is just the kind of phrase that the Bill seeks to delete, but it does not delete them all. Could it be that the promoter wishes to delete such references only in respect of certain aspects of the Act?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, if the promoter wished to be consistent he should have deleted all references to widespread acceptance, but he has not done so. The Bill was clearly drafted in haste and without due care and attention.
Perhaps, however, the promoter and sponsors are not clear about their intentions on some points as there is a great division in the Official Unionist party on this. Some Members of that party want full-blooded devolution, both executive and legislative. Others wish to bring in a second tier of local government by the back door, which is exactly what the Bill seeks to do.
Way back in 1976, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said:
Ulster needs a regional Government now. It needs a regional Government in which — as in the present government of metropolitan regions in England—all political parties would automatically participate in proportion to their elected representation."—[Official Report, 13 December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1045.]
When the people of Northern Ireland talk about a regional Government they think of Stormont, because the old Stormont was always regarded as a regional Government, but the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was referring to something very different. The attempt today to delete legislative devolution from the Act and to leave only administrative devolution is an attempt by the Official Unionists to turn Stormont into a second tier of local government.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said that it was not possible to have legislative devolution because of power sharing. Power sharing is obnoxious to the hon. Gentleman, or so he would have us believe. However, his right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley said something quite different. He said that all political parties would automatically participate in proportion to their elected representation.
We all know what happened in the city council last night. Members of Sinn Fein and the People's Democracy


justified the death of Councillor Armstrong. They publicly justified the use of the Armalite. We also know what Gerry Adams said in the Republic of Ireland at the weekend. He said that the person who murdered Councillor Armstrong was fully justified in doing so. He said that anyone who put on the Queen's uniform or that of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was a legitimate target and that those who kill them are justified in doing so.
I would not associate myself in any way with Sinn Fein, the People's Democracy or any others of that ilk who publicly stand up in a council chamber and say that the death of another local councillor is justified because he happened to be a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Indeed, when Councillor Armstrong was referred to as "Councillor" in that debate, they shouted out, "No, you mean major." It is clear that those people want to kill and maim the people of Northern Ireland, yet they want to have some part in the government of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, all of their acts are aimed at the destruction of Northern Ireland.
There is no need for any Executive in order to have legislative devolution. How are the laws of the United States enacted? They are enacted in the elected chambers of Congress. No Cabinet members are present and they do not operate the system that we employ. There is no reason why legislative devolution could not be introduced into Northern Ireland without an Executive. It is clear that right hon. and hon. Members opposite believe that legislative devolution, if given Northern Ireland, would in some way tend against the Union. That is in spite of the fact that, for many years, Stormont had legislative and administrative devolution. In 1976, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley—he was then the Member for Antrim, South—said that he regarded legislative devolution as repugnant to the integrity of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that. I believe that Stormont had legislative and administrative devolution and that that was a safeguard for the Union. The same consideration is important today.
On Second Reading we deal with the principles rather than with the nitty-gritty. I should like to deal with the principle of the 70 per cent. issue. Those who read the debates of this House will know that my hon. Friends and I opposed the 70 per cent. provision in the original Bill. The 70 per cent. should be changed to 70 per cent. of the House when it takes its vote, rather than 70 per cent. of its entire membership. What would happen here if we were tied by a law which required that 70 per cent. of the entire membership of the House had to agree to legislation? Not one piece of legislation would be passed. The Whips already have enough trouble, especially on Fridays, to keep even token forces present.
I am opposed to the 70 per cent. rule, but if we must have it, it should apply to 70 per cent. of those who attend. The 70 per cent. rule makes it impossible for those who are prepared to carry the burden of the Assembly's work to do so. It is important that that should be said to this House and that the House should know exactly the strictures under which it has placed the Northern Ireland Assembly.
To expect widespread acceptance is nonsense. There will never be widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland when representatives of Sinn Fein and the People's Democracy stand up and tell us that they can justify the killing of public representatives. Are the Government

saying that they should accept Sinn Fein Members of the Assembly, that they are prepared to give the green light —an appropriate colour—for proceeding in that way and that without it no progress can be made? The need for widespread acceptance should be swept from all provisions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the Government's position. When we talk about "widespread acceptance" we mean the involvement of the constitutional nationalist community and its representatives in a political party — the SDLP. No one has suggested that any of the criteria involved in widespread consent involves the consent of Sinn Fein or others who advocate violence.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is an amazing statement, because the Minister has not written that proviso into legislation. He should write it into the Bill. He has the opportunity to carry out his pledge and say in the Bill that only constitutional nationalists, whoever they may be, are involved. In the city hall last night the whole of the SDLP voted in favour of a gunman and those who advocate murder.

Rev. William McCrea: There is grave doubt about the SDLP's position as a constitutional party, bearing in mind that the SDLP, to a man and to a woman, in Magherafelt council voted in favour of honouring one of the mass murderers in Ulster, Francis Hughes, by naming a street after him and thereby uplifting his name in the south Londonderry community. The chairman of the Magherafelt branch of the SDLP, when Lord Mountbatten and 19 British soldiers were murdered, laughed and said, "I shed no tears over them." When he was told that many were Roman Catholics, he said, "Yes, but they were not Irish." Are they constitutional politicians?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to go down that road, because if he does he will be moving a long way from the Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister intervened and told the House that the Government's policy was that widespread acceptance involved only the SDLP. I am entitled to give an answer. I invite the Minister to act upon his assurance and to amend the Bill so that it is clear that the Government have only constitutional nationalists in mind.
By the look of things, the SDLP will be replaced by Sinn Fein. When Sinn Fein grows—God forbid that it should, but it looks as though it will—what do the Government do about "widespread acceptance?" We must face reality. It is wrong for any Government to give a veto to any political party in Northern Ireland. All parties must submit themselves to the ballot box and take the answer from the electorate. That is the only way in which the issue can be decided.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said that the Assembly serves no useful purpose. We know that the hon. Gentleman's energetic attendance at Committees of the Assembly would not make it serve any useful purpose. What answer will he give to the people of Northern Ireland about that statement? Was no useful purpose served when the farmers of Northern Ireland were given intervention grain? Will he tell the intensive farmers


of his community that no useful purpose was served when the hon. Gentleman's constituents attended the Agriculture Committee and said what was needed? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the farmers of Fermanagh and South Tyrone that the Assembly served no useful purpose when it forced the hand of the British Government on the issue of LFAs and put the application before Europe? I visited the hon. Gentleman's area and I listened hour after hour to his farmers. They said that they wanted the LFAs. Is that no useful pupose? What about the representation? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh may laugh, but there is nothing to laugh about. He was enthusiastic in those days. He attended the Committee. No one worked harder than the hon. Gentleman. He told us what a good job we were doing and to keep at it. He need not now intervene and say, "No useful purpose".
What about the bread-and-butter issues? What about the housing orders and the changes? I have been a Member of Parliament since 1970 and all the time that direct rule has been in operation. I know a little about the House. I never have the opportunity to bring a Minister to a room and question him on what he is doing, but I can do that at the Assembly. I never have the opportunity in the House to question the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on his policy for roads and hospitals in the Ballymena area, but I have an opportunity to do so in the Assembly. We did not agree, but at least I was able to represent the views of my constituents face to face with the hon. Gentleman. I never have the opportunity to do that in the House.
What about the proposed fishery order, which was so repugnant to the people of Northern Ireland? What about all the changes which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and the Assembly agreed were good and supported? The hon. Gentleman now says, "No useful purpose". He had better learn that the only things that one gets in politics are those for which one works hard and makes sacrifices.
I have learnt in my short life as a public representative that one can achieve only the "possible". The "impossible" will never be achieved. The first part of the Assembly is good. If that is taken away, we revert to direct rule without a bridle. Hon. Gentlemen appreciate that they are having difficulties in getting their proper proportion of representatives on the Committees of the House. Difficulties are faced in that area. They have experience of the Northern Ireland Committee. We all know how effective that has been in the past and what we have achieved through it.
I understand that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley told his fellow Unionists, "We are doing well in Westminster. We got a debate on UHT." So we did, but the Minister who replied to that debate did not mention Northern Ireland. It was not even considered.
Then the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, "We are opposing the Select Committees." However, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) alone who opposed them when motions in respect of them last appeared on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker called him and asked whether he was objecting to all of them. It was my hon. Friend's objection, not that of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and his hon. Friends.
Those right hon. and hon. Members had better take stock of their actions in the House. The people of Northern Ireland will learn from this debate that the place where

they really can be heard and make their presence felt is the Assembly of Northern Ireland. There must be a change. That Assembly must have proper legislative and administrative powers. We must have a full-blooded devolution and not some cosmetic exercise of a second tier of local government.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has paid me the compliment of quoting extensively from speeches that I delivered in the House in 1976. I shall not concern myself with correcting the inaccuracies. I say simply that at that time I was speaking as leader, and with the authority, of the United Ulster Unionist coalition. At that time the hon. Member for Antrim, North was my deputy leader. He did not object on that occasion, and he did not resign. It may be that in that finely balanced Parliament considerations of patronage were not entirely absent from his mind. At any rate, he appeared to agree with and supported me loyally in all that I did and said during that period.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Molyneaux: No, I will not give way.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman must give way. He has made an accusation against me.

Mr. Molyneaux: No. I was conveying my thanks—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I challenged the right hon. Gentleman on his speech at the time.

Mr. Molyneaux: —for his paving operation for my short contribution—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a right hon. Member to make a totally unfounded accusation in the House? He knows that he made that speech without consulting the UUUC, that there was a row in the UUUC about it and that afterwards it broke up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the Member who has the Floor whether he gives way.

Mr. Molyneaux: I take it that there is not time today to seek an opportunity to table a manuscript amendment thanking the hon. Member for Antrim, North for the tribute that he paid me earlier. Time is passing, so I shall have to deny myself that courtesy.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Molyneaux: It will come as no surprise if I as leader of the Ulster Unionist party repeat that my party is pledged above all else to the maintenance of the Union. Without the Union we could not regard ourselves as the Unionist party. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are supporters of the Union. They support the Union unless and until the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise. That is a perfectly sound position.
The Prime Minister was commissioned by the Sovereign to form a Government to govern the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. and the right hon. Lady can be commended for the leadership that she has provided not just for the United Kingdom but for regions further afield which are under neither her jurisdiction nor the sovereignty of Queen Elizabeth II. The Prime Minister has not been reluctant to advise them on


the ordering of their affairs, and other Heads of Government might profit from taking heed of the refreshingly candid views of the right hon. Lady from time to time.
These matters aside, the Prime Minister cannot be accused of suggesting that the burden of governing the United Kingdom could be lessened if she disposed of a portion of the United Kingdom, and apparently she has no intention of redrawing what might be called her prime ministerial constituency boundaries or suggesting any reduction in the total acreage of the estate under her management.
The Secretary of State has accepted the stewardship of one of the four component parts of the United Kingdom. This morning's newspaper seemed to forecast his re-entry into the debate on economic affairs. In other words, he may, if the forecasts are right, seek to modify Government policy by the use of his own personal standing in Cabinet, with behind him the prestige, if not the authority, of the Northern Ireland Office. If he can bring himself to accept my hon. Friend's Bill, and give the Northern Ireland Assembly real powers, who knows, in due course he might be able to say to the Cabinet that he is expressing the support of the Northern Ireland Assembly for his policy and claim to speak on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I hasten to say that that claim might be disputed by others, depending on their electoral fortunes at any given time.
For a variety of reasons, the Secretary of State can have no vested interest in abolishing Northern Ireland, removing it from the United Kingdom and thereby sawing off the branch on which he is sitting. The Secretary of State is influenced by worthier motives. He has been delegated by the Prime Minister to govern Northern Ireland, and he has received from the Queen the seals of office and been charged with the duty of governing that part of her realm.
In fairness, the Secretary of State has shown a greater commitment than his noble Friend Lord Gowrie, who, when he was asked in another place to come out more warmly and enthusiastically in favour of the Union, said that it would be quite all right for an individual to do so, and quite all right for a political party in what he called a "non-governmental" capacity to do so, but it would be quite improper for a British Government to do so as they believe in self-determination, and to come out in favour of the Union would be taking sides and would be "loading the question". Although the noble Lord is to be congratulated on his candour, I cannot believe, nor do I believe, that he was expressing the view of the Government as a whole. His attitude is, quite properly, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom unless the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise. That for me is the true meaning of self-determination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, has provided the Government with an opportunity to give evidence of their good faith in a form which more than anything else would knock the stuffing out of terrorists. The Government could show that they meant what they said when they declared that the purpose of the 1982 Act was to provide a full legislative and administrative means of achieving what has been the 

declared objective of the Government since 1979 —to give to the people of Northern Ireland more control over their affairs. That is precisely what the Bill aims to do, to Facilitate the resumption of legislative and executive functions by the Northern Ireland Assembly".
In the Government's aim of control over their own affairs by the Northern Ireland people, "control" is the operative word because an Assembly without control in its second year is a failed experiment. It need not be a failed experiment. The Assembly's standing would be dramatic ally increased if the Government were to accept my hon. Friend's reasonable and practicable proposals for making it possible, after a year, to move on to the second stage of the Act now that the time-serving first year of the Assembly has been completed. Only the Government have the power to take that decision, a decision that would breathe new life into the Assembly. Only the Government can save the Assembly.
I hope that today's reply by the Minister will not be just a restatement of the Government's position, or a slamming of the door on future progress. I hope that the Government and the House will recognise that the conditions and requirements in section 1 of the Act will not be achieved and cannot be achieved. I hope that, that having been done, the Government and the House will face the reality of the fact that if progress is to be made the twin road blocks in section 1 must be removed.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am not sure that this short debate will have done much to improve the image of the Unionist party in the United Kingdom. That is sad, but to some extent inevitable
The debate is not entirely new. Those of us who were in the House during the passing of the original Bill will remember the long days and nights that we had going through many of the arguments and rehearsing them, as we have done today. It is ironic that the Official Unionists, having walked out of the Assembly, are now trying to amend it. They walked out for utterly the wrong reasons at the wrong time. That needs to be said loudly and clearly.
I know that the Official Unionist party was never very enthusiastic about the Assembly. I realise that there is a deep split within that party as to whether it participates in the Assembly. To walk out as a result of paramilitary activity does no good to anyone on any side or with any view on Northern Ireland. It means that the message goes out from the Assembly, and indirectly from the House, that if one wants to bust a political initiative it can be done by the bullet and the bomb.
Although I have never made any secret of my doubts and my difficulties about accepting the Assembly in its current form, it would do my cause no good to recognise that a political initiative can be broken by paramilitary activity. It is a fundamental mistake and one into which we should never slip when debating Northern Ireland or any other matter when violence is being used to achieve political change. I want to make one other point to the Democratic and Official Unionists. One cannot force people to make a political institution work. To say in an amendment, as the Official Unionist party is doing, "We will accept you only if you take part in the Assembly and vote" is, in effect, to say to those who pursue the Republican cause in the North, "If you will not participate, we will go ahead without you."
The problem for the Unionists is precisely the same as for the Republicans. The two sides will not go away. They live in Northern Ireland, and unless one side is allowed to drive out or kill the other it will be the problems which must be faced in the island of Ireland, and the United Kingdom in its relationships with the island of Ireland.
To attempt to torpedo the Assembly at this time is not a good idea. In previous debates I have made clear my doubts about the Assembly's ability to function well, but I recognise, and recognised in the debate in the House last year, that it was an honest and genuine attempt by the Secretary of State to resolve the problem of Northern Ireland. I felt that the Assembly would never work effectively until we gave some meaning to the all-Ireland dimension.
The Secretary of State tried to deal with that by including the 70 per cent. part of the guarantee, which is what the Official Unionists are trying to remove today, and by trying to ensure that any decision taken by the Assembly had genuine cross-community support. I recognise that it was a genuine attempt, but I always felt, and said at the time, that it was inadequate and did not go far enough.
There was another message in all that, which is that if we do not have some form of devolved government working in Northern Ireland, in the short term the only alternative is direct rule. The Unionists and the Republicans need to recognise that at the end of the day that will alienate both communities. Direct rule to some extent plants the seeds of rebellion in both parts of the community because it gives nothing to either. It removes from them, as a number of hon. Members have already said, the power to decide local issues in their own community. Those local issues cannot be decided unless each side of the community recognises the rights of the other.
That is the difficulty today. It is sad that when the people of Britain—I use the term "Britain" advisedly—read the report of the debate they will recognise the deep hostility and strength of feeling between two parts of the Unionist party as represented in the House. They will then begin to understand the difficulties that we face in making Northern Ireland a viable political and economic unit.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) began by saying that he felt that no one should have a veto over an election. I think that those were his words. Would he have used the same words in 1918? If the Unionist party had not chosen to veto the outcome of the 1918 election for an all-Ireland settlement, I wonder how many more people would be alive today and how many people's lives would not have been torn apart by bombs and bullets. If that thought can be left with the Official Unionists, they might be a little less keen on imposing their will on the minority community in the north.
The Labour party's position is clear. We have been developing it and expanding it in recent times and we shall continue to do so. Our position is that one day we must recognise that Northern Ireland has been a failed political and economic border. We have known that for many years and have recognised it. I have said on many occasions in the House that political parties and Governments of both complexions have recognised that implicitly. Members of the Democratic Unionist party understand better than most that we have always treated Northern Ireland differently.

The Unionist party has always complained about that but that has told us what we know, that Northern Ireland is treated differently.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is more aware of that fact than most because he knows the way in which the people of England, especially, relate to the people of Northern Ireland. There is a real difference and the hon. Gentleman touched on it indirectly in his speech.
The British Government have to take a view on the border. We must be one of the few nation states to say, "If the people of this part of our state want to remain part of the state they can do so, and if they do not they can go." In other words, the British Government have no views on where the border should be. We would not take the same view if, instead of Northern Ireland, we were dealing with Caithness or Cornwall. If that were the position, we would take a very positive view. We would not allow a veto to be given to those who lived in those areas.
We are faced with a different problem in trying to achieve a united Ireland by consent. We must recognise that we are trying to achieve reunion between two groups of people who have sufficient cause and sufficent numbers to veto the desires of the other. Both sides must recognise that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. Soley: I shall not give way because of the lack of time. I recognise that the Minister wishes to intervene.
If we are to continue to challenge the attempts to set up a form of devolved government which crosses the divide in Northern Ireland, we shall find it that much more difficult to get a solution within Northern Ireland. However, the Unionist party must recognise that there is a growing feeling in this country and in the island of Ireland that the solution at the end of the day must involve an all-Ireland dimension.

Rev. William McCrea: Never.

Mr. Soley: That might be a relatively small or minor matter for some people. It means to me a united Ireland by consent with no veto for other political developments.

Rev. William McCrea: There will never be one.

Mr. Soley: That is the way out of the trap at the end of the day. It will not be achieved by shouting abuse from one side to the other.

Rev. William McCrea: It will not be achieved, full stop.

Mr. Soley: It will not be achieved by one side trying to bomb or kill the other into consent. It will not be achieved by people trying to veto political developments. If today's debate has shown anything, it has shown that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) on his good fortune in winning such a high place in the ballot and on bringing forward a Bill which enables us to discuss a vital matter for the future government of Northern Ireland. I know of the tensions that exist in the part of Northern Ireland that he represents. Therefore, I am especially grateful for the extremely reasonable way in


which he presented his case. Although, as he will discover, I cannot agree with the terms of the Bill, I hope to respond in an equally reasonable manner.
In the strict conventions of the House, the term "hon. and gallant Gentleman" is restricted to those hon. Members who use their military, naval or air force titles regularly; but the record of the hon. Gentleman in combating terrorism in Northern Ireland before he came to the House fully entitles him to the title of "hon. and gallant Gentleman."
The long title of the Bill expresses its purpose as being to
Facilitate the resumption of legislative and executive functions by the Northern Ireland Assembly".
It is a most important and serious subject. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when I say that we, as the Ministers who operate the system of direct rule, are only too conscious that it is a less than completely satisfactory way of running Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also said. That is why we are as committed as we ever were to finding a way in which the full range of potential functions can be returned to a Northern Ireland Assembly. That alone would be the basis for long-term peace and prosperity in the Province.
Although I recognise the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's views, I must say that, having examined carefully the provisions of the Bill, we do not believe that it will bring us closer to the realisation of those objectives. Rather, the Bill would, if it were enacted, widen the divisions in Northern Ireland and make it even more difficult to create lasting and widely acceptable political structures that take account of the Province's special circumstances.
It is almost 18 months since the Northern Ireland Act 1982 became law, and just more than a year since the newly elected Assembly first met. It is common ground that the Assembly has not, in its first year, achieved all that we hoped when it was set up. However, the Government never supposed that it would provide an instant solution to the problems of the Province. Nevertheless, as we were reminded by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Assembly has accomplished much that has been worth while for the people of Northern Ireland.
The House may remember that the 1982 Act conferred two new functions on the Assembly. It was to embark directly upon a scrutiny of the activities of the Northern Ireland Departments. Ministers can testify to the effectiveness with which that duty was carried out. The Assembly pursued the function vigorously, but it was clear from the debates on the Bill and from the wording of the Act that the principal function of the Assembly was to bring forward new proposals for the devolution of both legislative and executive functions to the Assembly and to those responsible for it.
As it is only a year since the Assembly was set up, those hon. Members who took part in the debates may remember that several amendments were moved which sought to put a time limit on the realisation of that second stage, and to provide that the Assembly should cease to exist if, after six months or two years or any other period, devolution had not been achieved. The Government took the view that it was impossible to put a time limit on the process. We believed that something as sensitive and new as the

Assembly would take time, and that it might be some time before other parties gave their consent to the Assembly. It would have been wrong to curtail the process by putting an artificial time limit on it. It is much too early now to say that it will not be possible, under the terms of the Act, to provide for devolution of power to the Assembly.
However, it is clear that for such proposals to be introduced they must either command the support of 70 per cent. of all the members elected to the Assembly; or, if the Secretary of State believes them likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community, the support of a simple majority. Hon. Members will remember that, under the Act, the proposals may then be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will lay them before Parliament. When proposals have been laid, arrangements for devolution can, with the approval of each House, be given effect by Order in Council. However, any such order must meet one fundamental condition. It must set out arrangements which, in the view of each House, and irrespective of whether the Secretary of State has previously expressed a view on the matter, are likely to command widespread acceptance throughout Northern Ireland. Those are the main provisions that the hon. Gentleman asks us to amend in the Bill.
The statutory background is a little complex. It is not my purpose today to go through the Bill to see how technically it might be amended. I have been in the same position as the hon. Gentleman. I have brought forward legislation as a private Member and been taken through it by a Minister who has explained how it does not match some other piece of legislation. I do not wish to do that this afternoon, for reasons of time, and also because that is not the spirit of our debate. We want to talk about the broad picture.
I wish to spend my limited time on the principle of seeking to abandon a precept that has been respected by successive Governments as they have addressed them-selves to the political difficulties of the Province. The words "widespread acceptance throughout the community" are, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, far from being a platitude. The hon. Member for Antrim, North says that acceptance is unattainable, but my view is clear. Those words are simply the statutory formulation of a principle that any new system of government in Northern Ireland must have a substantial measure of support in both parts of the community. The policy that that phrase embodies, when- put to this House over the years, has always commanded large majorities in its support. The need for widespread acceptance of any new arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland is a recognition of the realities of life in the Province, not just a matter of political argument.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made much of what he described as the reluctance of the two Front Benches to come together. I must reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said within the past week—that had we had proportionately the scale of deaths and damage in Great Britain that Northern Ireland has had to endure over the past 14 years, the people of Great Britain would have come to this House and said that the political parties must get together to arrange our affairs better.
Until 1972 the nationalist population in Northern Ireland was, in effect, permanently excluded from power. That state of affairs would have persisted for as long as the


system of political parties in Northern Ireland continued to be dominated by the issue of unionism against nationalism. The result, in my view, was inevitable—serious disillusionment with, and resentment of, these arrangements on the part of one third or so of the population. There was near universal recognition in the House, in the light of that experience, that such a system offered no way ahead and that the only promise of an end to dissension and a return to normality lay in the establishment, as it was put, of government by consent. That remains as true now as it did then. Unless the minority as well as the majority can be bound to the support of new political arrangements, there is little prospect that such arrangements will yield stable and effective government in Northern Ireland or create an atmosphere—this is of central importance to the people of Northern Ireland—in which it will be possible to tackle the Province's pressing security and economic problems.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: When partition occurred in Ireland, was not the then considerable southern unionist population permanently excluded from political power?

Mr. Scott: I wish to cover the inevitable consequences that occurred as a result of what happened in Northern Ireland and the need now to move in a different way if we are to achieve stable government for the Province.
The Bill, in effect, provides for a return to the very system that existed in 1972 and brought about the frustration and ultimately many problems that we face today. I do not believe that it would be possible simply to hand over either executive or legislative powers on their own. Under the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1982, it is clear that both executive and legislative powers must be handed over together. The Government do not have a closed mind about handing over one or other of those functions. We would look carefully at any proposals that seemed to have widespread support throughout the community. There can be no stable or effective government in Northern Ireland that does not have a substantial measure of support in both parts of the community. That is the simple, stark truth.
The Bill envisages a system that would leave the nationalist population in permanent, powerless and, one could not but imagine, increasingly disaffected, opposition — and, realistically, much of the opposition would be expressed outside the Assembly. I do not believe that the House will see that as a way forward.
We still believe that the Assembly, as it is regulated by the 1982 Act, offers the most hopeful framework for developing a satisfactory solution to Northern Ireland's political difficulties. I stress that it is no more than a hopeful framework. Any who chide it for not being a guaranteed solution misunderstand its nature. We cannot in this House conjure up a form of government that will meet the widespread acceptance criterion. We can only provide structures and offer the opportunity to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to work together in the interests of all its people. That is the whole point of the Assembly and the Act upon which it was established.

Rev. Martin Smyth: With the SDLP and Sinn Fein having been elected on a policy of abstentionism, how can we move towards acceptance within the next three years?

Mr. Scott: I agree that we cannot get the constitutional nationalists into the Assembly unless the Unionist parties are prepared to sit down with them and find a basis on which that participation can take place. The ball rests within the camp of the Unionist parties. If they want devolved government, they must be prepared to get together with the SDLP and determine whether a basis for participation can be found,
The Assembly has many obstacles to fact in formulating proposals which will command widespread acceptance, not least—and I say this more in sorrow than in anger—the recent withdrawal from it of the Official Unionist party. But in its first function, the scrutiny of direct rule, the Assembly has already done work of great value. It has examined, often in great depth, 11 proposals for draft Orders in Council, and I believe that many here found the Assembly's reports helpful when legislation came to the House for its consideration.
Leaving apart the longer-term devolution prospect, in which I still believe as the right way forward for Northern Ireland, the Assembly still has an important part to play in the politics of the Province. The Assembly has not only considered draft orders, but produced other reports on issues that it has selected for investigation. It has offered an opportunity for well-informed debate on issues of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. Ministers and officials have willingly offered themselves for searching questioning. The Secretary of State, other Ministers and I have attended 10 times in plenary sessions of the Assembly, and 21 times at departmental committees, though we have always been conscious of our overriding responsibilities to this House. While the Assembly has not progressed to the discharge of its second function—the submission of proposals for devolution in the form the 1982 Act demands—it has shown in all its work an energy and enthusiasm that must, if it could be harnessed to a widely acceptable machinery of Government, be a force for good in the Province.
Certainly, as a Minister with departmental responsibility in the Province, I know the effective and useful roles that the Assembly and its Committees have played. It was a source of great regret to the Government that they have not been able to persuade the SDLP to attend the Assembly and to add its contribution to the work of scrutiny and to join in the drawing up of plans for devolution. Attendance would in no way have compromised its national identity, and it could have done a great deal for the benefit of its supporters.
Equally, the withdrawal of the Official Unionist party is a cause of dismay. We all understand the feelings following the bestial regime of violence that Northern Ireland has endured, particularly its latest manifestation at Darkley. The objective of the terrorists who committed that atrocity is to weaken and destabilise democratic institutions in the Province. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will look—

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

JURIES (DISQUALIFICATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 December.

GENERIC SUBSTITUTION (NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 March.

CONTROL OF DOG NUISANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 December.

LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 December.

SOCIAL SECURITY (AGE OF RETIREMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading—[25 November].

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): No day named.

CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 December.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading—[18 November].

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 December

CARAVAN AND TENT SITES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 December.

TRADE MARKS ACT 1938 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading—[l1 November].

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 December.

AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 December.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week, the Chair kindly undertook to refer to Mr. Speaker for guidance certain matters arising out of the procedures that have operated in this place for many years. Has there been any further communication as a result of that reference to the Chair or the Select Committee on Procedure? Originally, when the Government did not want a Bill the Government Whips objected from the Whips' Bench. That procedure seems to have changed. The point that was raised last week was whether Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Back Benchers, would seek the advice of the Select Committee on this vexed question about which many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way in which he has raised that point. The matter was reported to Mr. Speaker. As I believe that the hon. Gentleman and the House know, however, no Select Committee on Procedure has been set up. Even if the House decided to set one up, that would be a matter for the House to decide. It is not for Mr. Speaker to decide what matters the House should consider and what recommendations the Committee should eventually bring before the House for decision.

Orders of the Day — Airbus Industrie (Government Support)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert ]

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: By the end of the year, the partners in Airbus Industrie and their Governments will have to make a decision about the new 150-seater aircraft, the A320. In addition, the British Government will have to decide whether to assist Rolls-Royce in producing the new consortium engine to power that and similar aircraft.
The sums of public money required for both projects are substantial, but the impact of the decisions could be more far-reaching than the direct economic considerations suggest, especially the decision on the A320. With that decision, Europe will decide whether it wishes to have a European civil aviation industry and to be an effective competitor against the United States in large civil aircraft production. Airbus Industrie has done well with its wide-bodie aircraft, but the addition of the A320 to provide a family of aircraft is essential to provide real competition and to create a viable long-term European industry in which the United Kingdom would have a pivotally important part.
The history of Airbus Industrie since its formation in 1970 has been one of unusual success. It has developed and marketed the A300 and now the A310, achieving a total of 350 firm sales, and is second only to Boeing in the sale of wide-bodied aircraft. Throughout the period, the United Kingdom has been associated with the project as the designer and manufacturer of the wings, thus partially restoring Britain to the position that it deserves in the civil aviation aircraft market. Success has not come without substantial investment and Airbus Industrie will go into profit only in the next few years, but it is already repaying its loans.
What makes the project so well worth supporting? In civil aircraft design the manufacturer marries cheap materials with high skills, resulting in a high-value product with great export potential. The project is worth supporting because this industry is especially suited to the United Kingdom. Although an aircraft industry takes a long time to develop, if it is healthy and retains and develops high technology, it brings long-term rewards.
The project must not merely provide suitable employment. We do not want another Concorde — a technological marvel but a financial disaster. What we want is what we shall have—an aircraft which, unlike Concorde, is fuel-efficient and quiet and fulfils a proven need. I believe that the A320 is commercially viable, economically sound and essential for the maintenance of an effective aerospace industry in this country.
Though good aircraft in themselves, the Trident, VC10 and Caravelle were low-volume aircraft and thus commercially unattractive. The Airbus Industrie story is different. Its success in European and overseas markets has shown the solid prospects of a high-volume programme and the recreation of a self-sustaining industry in Europe. Orders for seven to 10 of the A320s for British Caledonian and the commitment by six other airlines to 80 aircraft, possibly rising to 130, mean that the aircraft will be launched with more orders than any other European civil aircraft achieved.
Therefore, although finance and faith are necessary ingredients to produce this self-sustaining aircraft industry, with the success of the A300 and A310, Airbus Industrie has created a whole new market sector for short and medium-range wide-bodied twin-engined aircraft. There have been 350 sales so far, and hundreds more are expected. Although there will be further developments in the wide-bodied product line, Airbus Industrie is recognised by Boeing as its only serious competitor.
Currently, however, Boeing has one advantage that Airbus Industrie cannot offer—the ability to provide a family of aircraft to satisfy most, if not all, of an airline's need. That additional ingredient is a 150-seat short to medium-range single-aisle twin-engined aircraft. This the A320 is, fitting snugly between the Boeing 727 and 737, Douglas DC9, Trident and so on. All those aircraft are growing old. They are not so fuel-efficient and they are noisier. Even in updated forms, they have a lower earning potential than the A320. Independent bodies have estimated that, at the end of the century, some 3,200 new aircraft will be required in this sector. If Airbus Industrie achieved only 700 sales of the A320, Europe would have a high volume and stable programme of the type that is only enjoyed by the United States.
I recognise that there are problems. The A320 will enter into service only in the spring of 1988. That is already later than we should like. We must therefore not delay our decision on launch aid as any further delay will force airlines to make long-term arrangements to purchase improved Boeing 737s and DC9s. That would be a disaster. Although we do not want a political aircraft and although the Government are not interested in supporting failures, we want an aircraft that is commercially viable. The A320 is such an aircraft. The technical specification, although it might still be on paper, is based on technology that already exists on the A310. The technology is proven and is streets ahead of its rivals.
I shall now deal with matters relating to the engine. We hope that, in 1988, the A320 will be offered with CFM56. That engine entered into service in May 1982 and is, I understand, efficient and reasonably priced and what many airlines find attractive. There is, however, a logical need for a higher technology engine with lower fuel consumption. I look with pleasure on the announcement of the co-operation between Rolls-Royce, Pratt and Whitney and the Japanese on the V2500 engine. While that engine might not suit all A320 customers, airlines of technologically advanced countries will, I am sure, demand it. That can only enhance the United Kingdom industry. I urge my hon. Friend to marry the fortunes of Rolls-Royce to the European aircraft industry and vice versa more effectively than has been the case in the past.
My hon. Friend knows of the damage to aerospace employment that would be caused if launch aid were not provided. Although that will be an essential part of the decision equation, I would not want it to be the preeminent factor. What should be crucial to the launch aid decision — and what is undoubted — is that Airbus Industrie has been successful with its wide-bodied aircraft, but its product range needs to be widened to enable it to consolidate its position against United States manufacturers by the launch of the A320 with the earliest possible entry into service date.
Because of the risks involved and the programme length, British Aerospace, like other partners, has asked the Government for a loan to allow it to participate.


Without that aid it will not be able to do so. The market for the A320 and the new Rolls-Royce engine, by all accounts, including those of Airbus's competitors and other Governments, looks substantial. In combination with existing programmes, it would give the required stability and volume to restore the position of European and United Kingdom industry in the world aircraft market. That programme will create substantial employment. I am sure that it will prove a commercial success. It is utterly essential if we are to have a viable aerospace industry in the United Kingdom.
Without the £430 million loan, 98 per cent. of the world's large civil aircraft will again be American, many thousands of skilled men will lose their jobs, and an essential strategic industry will be destroyed for all time. Moreover, Britain will have to rely on foreigners to provide its missiles and combat as well as civil aircraft in the future.
This decision is a momentous one. By it, the Government will be deciding whether we should have an aerospace industry. I am convinced of the profound merits of the Airbus A300, A310 and A320 programme. I urge my hon. Friend to demonstrate the Government's resolution and to take a bold step into the future by supporting our aerospace industry and providing the loan to British Aerospace.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: rose—

Mr. Tom Sackville: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I must protect the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). Do the two hon. Members who wish to take part have the hon. Gentleman's agreement and that of the Minister?

Mr. Sayeed: They do.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: As we debate the A320 and the future of the Airbus Industrie we are once again—as on a similar occasion with respect to ALARM—considering the development of expertise and technology without which the nation will be poorer in stature and the more dependent on others. Additionally, the commercial and employment consequences continue to be self-evident.
It is regrettable that the SDP-Liberal alliance, as before, is not represented at this debate, which is well supported, as ever, by Government Members. It is vital that projects such as the A320, with which my constituency has been closely connected, should receive Department of Trade and Industry support by financial loan facilities being made available. It is also vital that other projects involving the British Aerospace aircraft division such as ACA should be afforded priority consideration for relevant Government commitment. That should also be so for projects involving the British Aerospace dynamics division, as in the welcome recent example of ALARM.
On the previous occasion, it was right, as it is now, to recognise that Britain has for long provided skill and innovation in aerospace which have been a source of justifiable pride and success. Denationalising British Aerospace has added lustre to an already outstanding

industry, but inevitably there remains a role for the Government as both sponsor and purchaser. That also needs restating.
I respectfully remind the House that I have long campaigned with certain positive results for due recognition to be afforded to British Aerospace projects such as the 146 aircraft, the A300 airbus, the Sea Eagle missile, ALARM and the A320. The last named deserves the early and favourable decision for which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and I are rightly pressing today.

Mr. Tom Sackville: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) for allowing me to intervene because I believe that we are discussing one of the most important industrial decisions by Government. It will influence whether Boeing becomes the monopoly, free-world producer of long-distance airliners and it will decide whether Britain continues as a major airframe manuacturer.
The A320 is not only a commercially viable proposition but it is a good advertisement for Britain and British industry internationally. It will demonstrate everywhere that traditional British engineering skills are alive and well.
Over the past few years Britain has poured billions of pounds into overmanned and inefficient industry, perhaps for good social and economic reasons. Are we now to grudge a fraction of that for one of the most exciting industrial projects of tomorrow? If we are, we have our priorities wrong.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) for raising this important subject and for his enthusiastic exposition of the issues. That the issues are enourmously important is demonstrated by my hon. Friend's speech, by interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) and for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), and by the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Northavon (Mr. Cope) and for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), and the shadow Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). We are considering a momentous matter.
The current airbus range constitutes by far the largest and most important civil aerospace programme in Europe today. Its significance for the European aerospace industry is well appreciated by the Government. Airbus Industrie, in which British Aerospace has a 20 per cent. partnership share, has achieved considerable success in establishing a position second only to Boeing as a manufacturer of wide-bodied civilian aircrft and demonstrating that a European collaborative venture can take on and beat the major American manufacturers.
We talk about market success, but we must be concerned not just with sales successes, but with the long-term financial results. To sustain its position in the market Airbus Industrie has proposed that it should broaden its product range into a "family" of aircraft as my hon. Friend explained. The A320 project, for that reason, has a strategic importance to the European aerospace industry and to British Aerospace in particular, and the


Government are aware of that fact. At the recent presentation on the A320 to the Prime Minister, British Aerospace explained in depth the implications of the project for it, including employment and the maintenance of design and technology skills.
When British Aerospace was privatised in 1981, the Government made it clear that the company would have the same eligibility for Government finance—launch aid—as other companies in the private sector and as its predecessor companies had prior to nationalisation. We stand by that statement and it has been made clear on many occasions since that the Government are prepared to consider launch aid for participation by British Aerospace—and indeed by other aerospace companies in viable new projects.
A short while ago I was able to announce Government support amounting to £70 million for the RB211 535-E4 engine, certification of which I was pleased to notice earlier this week was ahead of schedule. Government support amounting to £41 millin has been announced for the WG30 helicopter to he made by Westlands, which will also qualify for launch aid for the Italian collaborative venture — the EH101 helicopter. We have used the instrument of launch aid and we are in principle willing to do so.
Evaluation of the British Aerospace application for launch aid for the A320 is, I assure my hon. Friends, proceeding as a matter of urgency and the Government hope to reach a decision shortly. Inevitably, we must examine the prospects of the project yielding a commercial rate of return. Too often in the past substantial investment by the Government and the companies concernd in civil aerospace programmes has failed to provide a satisfactory return. Of the large number of civil aerospace programmes undertaken with Government support during the past 30 years, only the Viscount among airframe projects has sold in sufficiently large numbers for the Government loan to have been repaid.
It is essential, because of the large sums of money being sought, that the Government should be convinced that there are sound prospects of commercial viability.
I mentioned a moment or two ago that substantial amounts of public funds were involved. That is important to the Government, and the scale to which we are referring must be understood. British Aerospace is seeking £440 million in launch aid for the A320 and Rolls-Royce has recently submitted an application for launch aid of £113 million for its participation in the V2500 engine programme, which, as my hon. Friend said, could well be the engine for the A320. Taking the two projects together, the application for launch aid is about £550 million.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, orders for the A300 and A310 total some 350 aircraft from 46 airlines around the world. That is a good base and should provide a good launching-pad for the A320, although we must not delude ourselves that the Americans will give up their domination of the market easily or without the strongest competition. In outturn values, the development costs of the A320 could be in the region of £2,000 million; to recover that level of investment we need high volume production runs.
The current airbus programme represents the largest and most signifcant programme of international collaboration yet to emerge in the sphere of civil aircraft. Development of the airbus has demonstrated that the aerospace companies of six countries can collaborate successfully to develop and build an aircraft of technical

excellence, incorporating the most modern technology and good market appeal. Given the enormous costs of developing any major new aircraft, Airbus Industrie has, in effect, set the broad pattern for new aircraft programmes and perhaps also for aero engines.

Mr. Peter Shore: What is expected to be the contribution of the other European partners in this venture to launch aid corresponding with the British contribution of £440 million for the airframe?

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman's question is. Obviously the proportions will be split among the development costs in proportion to the work share.

Mr. Shore: I take it that the £440 million is the total for all the countries taking part.

Mr. Lamont: No.

Mr. Shore: What is their contribution to be?

Mr. Lamont: Their contribution will be their proportion of the £2,000 million. What proportion of the development costs they pay will depend on the decision that they make about what proportion of the development costs they wish to cover. The German Government, for example, have not yet made a decision. I cannot answer a question about the proportion. I can only say what the costs are likely to be.
As the airbus progresses beyond its pioneering stage as a collaborative venture, a clearer pattern will emerge of the strengths and weaknesses of its present structure and organisation. In any business which builds up its operation from scratch quickly, inevitably there is a tendency for growth perhaps to outpace the development of the internal organisation. With a project of this importance it is necessary to be sure that the organisation will be equal to the challenges that it faces and able to push for the maximum efficiency and the maximum cost consciousness. A key area of importance will be improvements in productivity to match those of the American industry.
The civil aircraft market is almost wholly denominated in United States dollars, regardless of where aircraft are built. The selling price of the A320 will be conditioned by the dollar price of competing American aircraft. For that reason, given the importance of exchange rates, it is crucial that the productivity of the European industry should as near as possible match that of the United States.
British Aerospace's proposed share of the programme for which it would have design responsibility is about 26 per cent. That is somewhat larger than its 16 to 18 per cent. in the current programme. We would like a larger share of the subcontract work, and that will be a relevant consideration for us in deciding what our participation in the programme should be. We believe that we could and should have a larger share of that subcontracting work.
My hon. Friend referred to the sales prospects and prospective competition. Recent reports suggest that McDonnell Douglas intends to retrench by not proceeding with further derivatives of the DC9–80 or with the MD3300 proposal for a new technology airliner equivalent to the A320. This could leave Boeing unchallenged in the wide sector of the civil airliner market, facing airlines with no choice or competition in their choice of aircraft. That is obviously an extremely important possibility to bear in mind.
The depth of the recession and the financial problems of airlines have meant that orders have not been placed in large numbers recently, but we can take comfort from the fact that the A320 is aimed at the replacement of existing aircraft rather than at the development of a different sector of the market. Recent orders, especially that from British Caledonian, are encouraging.
My hon. Friend referred to the need for early decisions. Appraisal of the case is receiving our urgent attention. I hope that we shall be in a position to reach a decision early in the new year. The French Government have signified their willingness to support the project, but our time scale closely matches that of the German Government. I assure

my hon. Friend that we are aware of the importance attached to protecting the projected spring 1988 entry into service date.
The concern of those at all levels of civil aerospace about the future of the industry, employment, technology and the capability in Europe has been expressed to us and is understood. I assure my hon. Friends that these matters will be borne most carefully in mind by the Government in reaching their decision on the A320.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to spell out the Government's position and how we are tackling an extremely important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.